Business before Questions

Committee of Selection

Ordered,
That Jessica Morden be discharged from the Committee of Selection and Lilian Greenwood be added.—(Stuart Andrew.)

Oral
Answers to
Questions

Health and Social Care

The Secretary of State was asked—

Discharge from Hospital: Covid-19 Outbreak

Rob Butler: What steps his Department is taking to support the effective discharge of patients from hospital during the covid-19 outbreak.

Sajid Javid: We are working closely with the NHS, social care and local authorities to significantly reduce delayed discharge and free up beds for those who need them most. We are making full use of non-acute beds, including those in hospices, other community beds and beds in the independent sector. To drive further progress and support regional and local systems, I also established a new national taskforce last month to help deliver best practice.

Rob Butler: I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. Many people would like to leave hospital when their treatment is completed, but they are not quite well enough to cope alone at home. That is obviously frustrating for them, because they want their independence, it creates problems for hospitals, which need the beds, and it costs the taxpayer unnecessary money. Does my right hon. Friend therefore agree that the development of a strategy to provide intermediate care to support discharge would help alleviate pressure on both the NHS and the social care sector?

Sajid Javid: I do agree with my hon. Friend. That is why, as part of our continued response to the covid-19 pandemic, on 2 December last year NHS England asked local systems to consider ways to increase patient flow out of acute hospital settings. That includes surge capacity in care homes, identifying unused hospice capacity and, in some cases, repurposing hotel accommodation  where appropriate. NHS England is reporting to me on this regularly, and it is something that we will closely monitor progress on.

Barbara Keeley: The Government’s own impact assessment of discharge to assess in the Health and Care Bill, which was published almost two months after the Bill was voted on, expects unpaid carers to have to give up working hours and bear the financial burdens of the discharge to assess policy. In the light of that assessment will the Government provide greater support to unpaid carers, or will they actually reconsider this policy?

Sajid Javid: Throughout the pandemic especially we have been providing more and more support, quite rightly, across the care sector, including for domiciliary care in care homes and unpaid carers. We have made £3.3 billion of extra funding and support available since March 2020.

Philip Hollobone: Kettering General Hospital is a 500-bed medium general hospital, and I am afraid that too many, mainly elderly, people who have completed their medical treatment still await discharge back into the community in a safe way. Will the Secretary of State ensure that the national taskforce is sent to Northamptonshire to help us deal with this issue?

Sajid Javid: My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue. It is of increasing concern, especially as we have seen hospitalisations rise because of the omicron wave. I believe that the national taskforce is already looking at Northamptonshire. If it is not, I will certainly make sure it does.

Lindsay Hoyle: I welcome the shadow Minister, Karin Smyth.

Karin Smyth: Around 10,000 medically fit people are currently in hospital when they should be at home with their families or in a supported setting. That is a tragedy for them and a mark of shame on this Government. Short-term cash, taskforces or threatening legal action are not solutions. Social care support is a lifeline not a luxury, so will the Government now work with us cross-party in line with the joint Select Committee report of 2018 to bring forward immediate change and offer hope and respite to those receiving and giving social care?

Sajid Javid: First, may I welcome the hon. Lady to her new position and wish her all the very best? She will have heard in a previous answer that social care and those who provide social care, which is such a vital act and such a vital service throughout our country, are receiving record amounts of support—£3.3 billion of extra financing since March 2020. Of course I would be more than happy to work with her and her colleagues to see whether there is more that we can do together.

Covid-19: Hospital Admissions

Harriett Baldwin: What steps his Department is taking to reduce the number of covid-19 hospital admissions.

Lia Nici: What steps his Department is taking to reduce the number of covid-19 hospital admissions.

Sajid Javid: We have developed a globally recognised programme that combines boosters, testing and antivirals to protect the vulnerable and to reduce hospital admissions. Our “Get Boosted Now” campaign led to a huge increase in vaccination rates and we have successfully procured the highest number of antivirals per head in Europe. We are also employing the use of remote monitoring technology to enable more patients to get the care that they need at home rather than having to be admitted into hospital.

Harriett Baldwin: Before omicron arrived there had been over 10 million positive cases in this country of covid-19, of which 14 in every 1,000 appeared to have been fatal. Since omicron arrived there have been a further 5 million cases, and it looks as though the fatality rate is about 10 times lower. Will the Secretary of State tell the House how important the “Get Boosted Now” programme has been in reducing hospitalisations and fatalities?

Sajid Javid: Yes, of course. The officials within my Department have carried out a wealth of analysis on case fatality rates in the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations. Recent data has shown that covid-19 case fatality rates for the over-80s are likely to be more than five times greater in the unvaccinated versus those who have had at least two doses.
My hon. Friend may be interested to know that, when I recently visited the intensive care unit dealing with covid patients in King’s College, the consultant in charge told me that he estimated that about 70% of his patients on that day were completely unvaccinated. It is clear, as we have seen especially in the past few weeks, that vaccinations save lives.

Lia Nici: I have a 90-year-old constituent who has been prevented from going to see his 89-year-old wife of 65 years. It took my intervention after 20 days of his being prevented from seeing her for him to be able to get into the hospital. Neither of them have covid. Will my right hon. Friend please instruct health trusts that, as we reduce the incidence of covid in hospitals, family members must be allowed to go and see their family in hospital?

Sajid Javid: I am very sorry to hear about what happened to my hon. Friend’s constituent. It cannot be right that people are unable to visit their loved ones while they are in hospital. It should not require the intervention of a Member of Parliament to do so. Allowing such visits should be an absolute priority in every trust, and I have recently raised this issue with the chief executive of the NHS. She has assured me that this message will be sent loud and clear to all NHS trusts.

Emma Hardy: Too many women with endometriosis are being forced to go to A&E or seek hospital admissions for their treatment. This is partly because they wait on average seven and a half years for a diagnosis. What can  the Secretary of State do to improve the knowledge and awareness of endometriosis right across all aspects of the NHS?

Sajid Javid: The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise the importance of endometriosis. She will know, I hope, that in the women’s health strategy there will be an important focus on it. Within that strategy, we have set out how we can work together to do much more.

Daisy Cooper: We know that the number of covid admissions has led to a number of people having their routine hospital treatment cancelled. Last week it was announced that that had reached a record-breaking 6 million people. When might the Government make a statement about hitting this figure and set out a plan to tackle it?

Sajid Javid: The hon. Lady will know that, sadly because of covid and the need for the NHS to prioritise it—rightly—we have sadly seen an increase in people waiting for elective procedures and scans. She will also know that the Government have already set out a plan to deal with that in terms of funding—the biggest catch-up fund in history, with an extra £8 billion of funding over the next three years. After tackling the most immediate need to deal with omicron, we will shortly set out in much more detail how we intend to tackle the elective backlog.

Covid-19 Vaccination Sites

Sheryll Murray: What steps his Department is taking to provide additional covid-19 vaccination sites.

Mark Fletcher: What steps his Department is taking to provide additional covid-19 vaccination sites.

Maggie Throup: To maximise uptake there are now more than 3,000 sites—more than ever—delivering covid-19 vaccines and boosters, including hundreds of walk-in sites. Opening times have been extended to seven days a week. GPs and community pharmacies have been asked to do more vaccinations, and 750 armed forces personnel and 41 military planners have been brought in to every region to help co-ordinate the national effort. The offer of a covid vaccine—a first or second dose, and a booster for those eligible—remains open to everyone.

Sheryll Murray: In rural areas such as mine in South East Cornwall, it can mean travelling miles to get to the nearest available centre. What ambitions do the Government have to get vaccinations out to the smaller communities to assist those who have yet to be vaccinated to get their jab?

Maggie Throup: Well, 99% of the population in England live within 10 miles of a covid-19 vaccination site, and robust plans are in place to ensure that everyone has convenient access to a vaccine. In Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, 85% of those eligible have received their  booster or third dose. There are targeted vaccination programmes in Cornwall to support the homeless, Traveller and migrant workers communities and fishermen—a community that has a great champion in my hon. Friend.
For those in more rural Cornwall communities, a further 16 pop-up sessions are organised throughout January, and more are planned to ensure that everyone can get boosted more easily.

Mark Fletcher: A number of residents in Bolsover have written to me to ask why there is not a specific vaccination centre in the town. Given that the booster roll-out has slowed locally and given our poor bus connections, could the Minister—as my former Whip, I know that she is incredibly persuasive—look into having a specific site in Bolsover?

Maggie Throup: There are now six vaccination sites in the Bolsover district. A regular pop-up clinic was also set up in Shirebrook to address and identify the shortfall in uptake, but that has been phased out as new community pharmacy and primary care network clinics came on board to support the local vaccination programme and increase the number of Bolsover sites at the end of 2021. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be delighted to hear that a new roving vaccination van is being deployed across Derbyshire. It will visit Bolsover and surrounding villages to provide extra capacity and ensure that everyone has another way to get their booster jab. It will also allow those not yet vaccinated to come forward for this life-saving protection.

Tim Farron: Undoubtedly, additional vaccine sites in rural communities will increase vaccine uptake, which is vital. However, does the Minister agree that, for NHS staff, counselling and one-to-one conversations are right and far more effective than the Government’s current plan potentially to sack the 5% of hospital staff in the Morecambe Bay region and indeed across the country who have not been vaccinated? That would cause a serious capacity problem in the NHS.

Maggie Throup: I reassure the hon. Gentleman that we are talking about patient safety. He is quite right that it is important to have that dialogue, and I know that colleagues across the board in the NHS are having that. It is interesting to note that more than 94% of NHS staff have already had their vaccine, and I commend them for that. As the chief medical officer Chris Whitty rightly said, those looking after other people who are very vulnerable have a “professional responsibility” to get vaccinated.

Catherine West: Access to vaccinations in remote areas is incredibly important, but so is a general health strategy for clinically very vulnerable people. Young Lara in my constituency had the organ that she desperately needed for a double organ transplant, but unfortunately there was no bed in intensive care for her to have the operation. What strategy is the Department taking in general for our clinically vulnerable to provide access to operating theatres so that there is a focus not just on vaccination but on the multiple health conditions that so many of them suffer across the board?

Maggie Throup: The hon. Lady makes a really good point. I reassure her that procedures for urgent cases have not been cancelled. As the House knows, we are looking at the private sector to help deliver vital support for those patients.

Covid-19 Testing Infrastructure

Mike Wood: What assessment he has made of the capacity of the UK’s covid-19 testing infrastructure in comparison to other countries.

Maggie Throup: The UK continues to provide one of the highest testing rates globally. We have increased capacity for PCR testing by over 200,000 tests per day since December. Home delivery capacity is now at 7 million lateral flow tests every day, with community pharmacies supplying an additional 9.5 million tests last week. In comparison to England, countries that have put in place more restrictions might have chosen a different balance between lateral flow devices and PCRs to meet their individual testing demands. Therefore, we cannot meaningfully compare our testing infrastructure to that of other countries.

Mike Wood: I thank the Minister for that answer. Health and social care workers who care for some of the most clinically vulnerable members of our society were rightly prioritised for early vaccination. Does she agree that, similarly, they must be prioritised for testing? What is she doing to ensure that?

Maggie Throup: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The most vulnerable people are being prioritised. The UK Health Security Agency and NHS Test and Trace currently deliver an average of more than 70,000 PCR kits and 970,000 LFD kits a week to adult social care settings. In recent weeks, as demand has increased due to the omicron wave, Dudley, like other local authorities, has provided tests to key workers to enable them to keep working.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for her response. The Government have recently announced that self-isolation will be cut to five days, given a negative lateral flow test. Has the Minister come to an assessment on the impact that will have on demand for lateral flow tests, given the struggle many have faced trying to obtain a box of them in recent weeks?

Maggie Throup: As we look at policy and amend it like we did last week, it is right that we make sure that we can fill those requirements. I reassure the hon. Gentleman that we can, and we have increased the procurement of lateral flow devices. This month, we will get another 750 million lateral flow devices into the UK for January and February.[Official Report, 20 January 2022, Vol. 707, c. 6MC.]

Matthew Hancock: I am sure the whole House will welcome the early signs of falling numbers of people in hospital with covid. Does the Minister have any comments on the news yesterday from the World Health Organisation that it thinks that the UK looks set to be one of the first countries out of  the pandemic, and how much weight does she put on the vaccination and booster programme, and the colossal scale of our testing availability, in that achievement?

Maggie Throup: My right hon. Friend makes a really good point. We know that omicron numbers are still really high, and we still have more than 2,000 people hospitalised every day, so we do need to be cautious. But my hon. Friend is right, in that our vaccine and testing programmes have been vital in being able to tackle this deadly virus. I encourage everybody to get their booster and, if they have not come forward for their first or second jab, to get those too.

Covid-19 Tests: Supply

Bill Esterson: What plans his Department has to ensure that there is an adequate supply of covid-19 tests during the covid-19 outbreak.

David Duguid: What steps his Department is taking to increase the supply of lateral flow and PCR covid-19 tests.

Sajid Javid: We have significantly increased our testing and supply capacity since December, procuring over 700 million more lateral flow tests, ramping up our delivery capacity and expanding the UK’s daily PCR capacity. Around 1.7 billion lateral flow tests have been distributed across the UK since the start of the pandemic. Home delivery capacity is now at over 7 million lateral flow tests every day, and we have also recently increased capacity for PCR testing by more than 200,000 tests per day.

Bill Esterson: I asked the Prime Minister, but he did not know. I asked the Business Secretary and he did not seem to care. So today is third time lucky. Why were 30 million British-made lateral flow tests sitting in a warehouse waiting for approval while Chinese tests were given temporary approval, all while people could not get test kits from pharmacies or from Test and Trace? It took six months to give approval to SureScreen diagnostics: when will the Government support British test manufacturers and end the preference for imports from China?

Sajid Javid: I can give the hon. Gentleman an answer, and I am very happy to do so. He will know that whenever we try to procure tests, in this case lateral flow tests, we should always try to buy British first, and we do buy from SureScreen—it is a fantastic supplier. But he will also know that we can only, rightly, buy lateral flow tests once they have been approved by our independent medical regulator.

David Duguid: Does my right hon. Friend agree that access to the largest testing programme in Europe is just one example of the advantages to the people of Scotland when we adopt a UK-wide approach to shared challenges?

Sajid Javid: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend about a unified approach to shared challenges such as covid-19, and that unified approach being the best way forward. Across the UK, we have built the largest  diagnostic network in British history and our testing programme has been one of the most important lines of defence, alongside our UK-wide vaccination programme. Our procurement of tests, antivirals and vaccines has been another fantastic example of the strength of the Union.

Andrew Gwynne: “Always try and buy British first” was what the Secretary of State said a few moments ago, but a few weeks ago it was reported that plans to manufacture lateral flow tests here in the UK were shelved because the Government were scared that they might be accused of handing out dodgy deals to their mates. I know the Minister has form on this, but on this point they were misguided. Can he now say to the House that that was not the case and that he was not running scared of a transparent procurement policy, and that he will now do all he can to turbocharge British manufacturing and get British lateral flow tests in the system, so that we do not ever suffer again from those avoidable shortages we saw over Christmas?

Sajid Javid: First, I think the hon. Gentleman accused me of doing something inappropriate, and I think that that is not appropriate, unless he has something else to say or some evidence, but it is true to form for the Labour Front Bench, which just constantly makes things up to make false points. When it comes to testing, as he has just heard me say, we have purchased 1.7 billion lateral flow tests since the start of the pandemic. Wherever possible, whether it is PCR testing or lateral flow testing, whenever tests are approved by our independent regulator, we buy British.

Free Prescriptions: People aged 60 and Over

Sarah Green: If he will make it his policy that prescriptions will remain free for people aged 60 and over.

Maria Caulfield: At the present time, no decision has been made to increase the upper age exemption for free prescriptions.

Sarah Green: Such a policy change would hit a vulnerable age bracket who are more likely to have one or more long-term illnesses requiring medication. A constituent of mine has told me of his concern at the cost of paying for his wife’s Parkinson’s medication, should such a change be introduced. Given that the millions facing a new charge will also be hit by a rise in living costs, will the Secretary of State shelve such proposals and review the list of conditions that qualify for a medical exemption certificate?

Maria Caulfield: Can I just reinforce the answer I have just given? There is no decision to increase the upper age exemption for free prescriptions, and the rumour circulating that the Government are removing free prescriptions for pensioners is completely false. The Government are absolutely committed to maintaining free prescriptions for pensioners.

Stephen Metcalfe: I am very pleased to hear that no decision has been made on this important topic, and I hope the situation remains as it is. Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to remind those who are paying for their prescriptions that a pre-payment certificate is available that can save a significant amount of money for those who regularly use their pharmacy?

Maria Caulfield: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and he does well to highlight the pre-payment certificate. If people go for a 12-month certificate, which is about £2 a week, for two items they can save £116.30 and for three items, £228.50, so it is well worth the investment.

Folic Acid in Flour

John McNally: What recent steps the Government have taken to progress the introduction of mandatory folic acid supplementation in flour to prevent spinal conditions in babies.

Maggie Throup: Following consultation last September, we announced that we would legislate to fortify non-wholemeal wheat flour with folic acid. We are working at pace to move this policy forward, and we have already engaged with industry as part of a cross-Government review of bread and flour regulations. All four nations are now working closely together to develop the draft legislation and impact assessment for future consultation.

John McNally: I thank the Minister for her answer. As she knows, the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition has recommended mandatory folic acid fortification of flour. The UK Government launched a public consultation that closed in 2019. In September last year, the UK Government announced that folic acid will be added to non-wholemeal wheat flour across the UK to help to prevent life-threatening spinal conditions in babies. Therefore, can the Minister update the House on the UK Government’s timeline to implement the decision in a wee bit more detail, please?

Maggie Throup: I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this important issue, because fortifying non-wholemeal wheat flour with folic acid will help to prevent hundreds of neural tube defects in foetuses every year. I regret that I cannot commit to a specific timetable, but we need to consult on the draft legislation and will look to give industry appropriate notice. All four nations are working together on the timetable and hope to deliver this important policy as soon as possible.

NHS Capacity and Resilience: Covid-19

Craig Tracey: What steps his Department is taking to help (a) maximise NHS capacity and (b) increase the NHS’s resilience during the covid-19 outbreak.

Edward Argar: Alongside measures to reduce demand and admissions, such as the vaccine roll-out and new therapeutics for covid, the NHS is creating the maximum possible capacity and investing in improved discharge arrangements, the use  of independent sector beds, virtual wards and Nightingales to provide surge capacity, alongside our investment in delivering more than 20,000 more clinical staff this year compared with August 2020.

Craig Tracey: I thank the Minister for that answer. As he knows, one of the main challenges facing hospitals is delays in the transfer of patients back to care homes due to historic restrictions, particularly where there has been an outbreak, although there may have been only one case. As we move to treating covid as more of an endemic condition, what steps can be taken to stop restricting admissions to these care homes, which would undoubtedly relieve pressure on hospitals?

Edward Argar: There is local flexibility to allow residents to be safely admitted to a care home during outbreak restrictions, following a risk-based approach that takes into account the size of outbreaks, who is affected, care home size and layout, rates of booster vaccination and current Care Quality Commission rating. The CQC supports risk-based decisions made on admissions to support the discharge of people with a negative covid test result, but, of course, we must continue to ensure the safety of those in care homes.

Martyn Day: The workforce are absolutely central to growing NHS capacity. The advice in a Migration Advisory Committee report was to amend migration policies, make
“Care Workers and Home Carers…immediately eligible for the Health and Care Worker Visa and place the occupation on the Shortage Occupation List.”
When will the UK Government start listening to their advisers and change migration policies to alleviate the pressures facing our NHS?

Edward Argar: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question and for the tone of his question. He is absolutely right to highlight the importance of the workforce. The workforce are the golden thread that runs through the heart of everything we do in our NHS, which is why we have already taken a number of steps to increase our workforce. We are well on target to meet our target of 50,000 more nurses. As I mentioned in my initial answer, in August last year we had over 20,000 more clinically qualified staff compared with August 2020, so we continue to grow the workforce.

Luke Hall: Delivering new community hospitals is a key part of upgrading and expanding NHS capacity. The Department is currently examining a bid to rebuild and expand services at Thornbury Hospital, which is desperately needed due to the expansion of the town. Will my hon. Friend meet me to discuss the next steps in delivering this vital infrastructure improvement in south Gloucestershire?

Edward Argar: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is absolutely right that, in looking to meet the demand challenges imposed on our NHS, it is not just about district, general or acute hospitals, but about all our hospital facilities, including community hospitals. He has raised this subject with me on a number of occasions. He is a doughty champion for Thornbury and, of course, I am always happy to meet him.

John Cryer: On the issue of capacity, the argument has always been floating around that bed numbers can be cut on the basis of medical and technological advances. That was always deeply suspect, but in the context of covid-19 and its aftermath, can the Minister assure the House that there will be no cuts in bed numbers in any future hospital reconfiguration?

Edward Argar: Decisions on hospital reconfigurations and changes to local hospital systems are a matter for the local NHS, following full consultation and consideration of the needs of local communities. The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the importance of bed capacity in the NHS. The NHS as a whole will continue to look at what bed capacity is needed to meet future need.

Gagan Mohindra: My constituent David Hulbert contacted me to ask that I pay tribute in the Chamber to the phenomenal NHS teams from both Mount Vernon Hospital and Watford General Hospital for the care he has received, following his admission for cancer. Will the Minister join me in thanking the NHS for its tireless, backlog-clearing work, and for continuing with lifesaving non-covid operations, alongside its ongoing heroic actions leading our covid fight and vaccine roll-out?

Edward Argar: I am always happy to take the opportunity, as I know the Opposition Front-Bench team and my colleagues are, to thank the amazing NHS workforce for the work they have done. I pay tribute to the work of the teams at Mount Vernon and Watford General and, in the context of the pandemic, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Dean Russell), who volunteered to help out at the hospital.

Meg Hillier: The Minister highlighted the use of independent care providers. Last week, the Department announced that 150 hospitals would be on standby for three months to provide additional resource. Can the Minister tell the House when he or his Secretary of State asked NHS England to investigate standing up the 150 hospitals, which will receive a minimum income guarantee of £75 million to £90 million a month?

Edward Argar: I think I heard the hon. Lady correctly and she asked when those discussions began. That was last year, prior to the peak of this wave. We believe that the use of the independent sector to assist our NHS and provide additional capacity is absolutely the right thing to do. Thus far, during the course of the pandemic, it has provided, I believe, over 5 million procedures to patients. Therefore, we think this is a valuable and important addition to our capacity, and it is right that we have this surge capacity insurance policy in place to help to meet further demand.

Covid-19 Hospitalisations: Vaccination Programme

Andrew Murrison: What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the covid-19 vaccination programme in reducing hospitalisations.

Maggie Throup: Vaccination continues to offer our best line of defence against hospitalisation due to covid-19. The latest data shows vaccine effectiveness against hospitalisation with the omicron variant was 58% after one dose and 64% up to 24 weeks after two doses. Vaccine effectiveness against hospitalisation was 92% in the first two to four weeks after a third dose or booster and 83% after 10 or more weeks. Those who are unvaccinated are eight times more likely to be hospitalised. That is why it is so important that everybody takes up the offer to get boosted.

Andrew Murrison: I thank the Minister for that reply. The facts are that the vaccination programme has been massively successful in reducing hospitalisation, particularly admission to intensive therapy units. So will the Minister confirm that, on 26 January, particularly given what we now know about the nature of the covid variant that we are currently struggling with, those regulations will lapse? Will she further confirm that she will amend advice on working from home? Most importantly, will she ensure that we reverse the counterproductive compulsory vaccination of NHS staff that the Government’s own figures suggest—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Come on, we cannot have questions that are so long.

Maggie Throup: Although evidence shows that the omicron variant causes less severe disease than previous variants, yesterday in England we still had over 16,000 covid patients in hospital and over 84,000 reported cases. Plan B measures are currently in place in England, and will be reviewed before the regulations expire on 26 January. The best thing everyone can do to help to keep the virus under control is to keep coming forward for booster jabs to help to stop the spread of infection and manage the immediate pressures on the NHS.

Rachael Maskell: I am seriously concerned about the rapidly depleting efficacy of the vaccine—at 10 weeks, between 40% and 50% protection—and therefore my question to the Minister is: what happens next? Already we are talking about a mandatory programme of vaccine for NHS staff which will see depletion after 10 weeks, but also public health measures may be removed: what next after the booster?

Maggie Throup: I would like to reassure the hon. Lady that the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation is monitoring this all the time, and we take advice from the JCVI.

Face-to-face GP Appointments

Nicola Richards: What steps his Department is taking to reduce waiting times for face-to-face GP appointments.

Maria Caulfield: In October last year, the Government announced a plan to improve general practice capacity, backed up by £250 million of winter access funds to help GPs and their practices. That can be used to fund more sessions from existing staff, or indeed increase the physical premises at a practice. For  my hon. Friend’s area, the Black Country and West Birmingham clinical commissioning group expects an award of £6.5 million from the winter access fund.

Nicola Richards: My constituents in West Bromwich East have been raising concerns with me about their ability to access face-to-face GP appointments at local surgeries. Given the significant £250 million winter funding package for general practice announced towards the end of last year, what assessment has the Minister made of whether that support is making a real difference on the ground?

Maria Caulfield: I thank my hon. Friend, who is pushing me constantly to improve access for her constituents, but can I reassure her that the announcement, the funds and the support are making a difference? In November last year, there were on average 1.39 million general practice appointments per working day, compared with 1.31 million in November 2019, but crucially, 62.7% of those appointments were face to face, so this is really making a difference for patients.

Feryal Clark: A nurse wrote this week about working on covid wards during the height of the pandemic:
“There were no vaccines or treatments then and we worked for hours in full PPE to protect ourselves and try not to bring the virus home to our families. There were no after work drinks for us…It is clear that there was a culture inside Number 10 where even if rules were not technically broken, the spirit of the rules were, and this is completely unacceptable.”
The nurse is the Minister. Surely she must agree that the Prime Minister should now resign.

Maria Caulfield: I am very disappointed by the hon. Lady’s question. Serious issues are facing the NHS and patients, and instead of playing party politics at the Dispatch Box, perhaps she needs to ask her own leader what he was doing in May last year.

Discharge from Hospital: Care Packages

Laurence Robertson: What steps he is taking to help expedite the process of arranging care packages for people waiting to be discharged from hospital; and if he will make a statement.

Gillian Keegan: People should be discharged from hospital safely and with the appropriate care and support they need. As the Secretary of State outlined, we have provided £3.3 billion via the NHS to facilitate timely hospital discharges over the pandemic, including £478 million just for this winter. We recognise that providers and local authorities have experienced significant challenges in recruiting and retaining social care workers. That is why we have provided £462.5 million over winter, for this period, to support care providers to improve existing care support.

Laurence Robertson: I thank the Minister for that response, but even given all that help, almost 30% of available acute beds in Gloucestershire are occupied by patients who are medically fit for discharge. About half of those are awaiting care packages and the other half are looking  for beds in community hospitals or care homes, or awaiting home discharge. What more can the Government do to relieve the pressure on the acute hospitals in Gloucestershire and on all the medical staff?

Gillian Keegan: I assure my hon. Friend that this is something we take very seriously and we meet every day to discuss this issue. We are conscious of the pressures caused by omicron, and of the herculean challenges faced by health and social care providers to discharge people in a safe and timely way, particularly with outbreaks and having to manage infection prevention and control. That includes the Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, which declared a national incident on 28 December at its Gloucestershire site. But it responded brilliantly and stood down the incident nine days later. As the Secretary of State said, we have also established a national discharge taskforce, which is driving progress to bring a renewed focus on reducing discharge delays, including in Gloucestershire, and working with local government and the NHS.

Cancer Outcomes

Alex Norris: What recent assessment he has made of cancer outcomes.

Maria Caulfield: Based on the latest available data—I am sure the hon. Gentleman will welcome this—one-year survival rates for all cancers combined are at a record high, with an increase from 63.6% to 73.9%, and the five-year survival rate for all cancers combined has increased from 45.7% to 54.6%.

Alex Norris: To ensure the best cancer outcomes, patients need to start treatment as soon as they can. But in the latest data the Minister addresses, the number of those who waited for more than two weeks to see a specialist set a new record high for the third month running, soaring to more than 55,000 people in November, prior to the peak of this wave. Macmillan Cancer Supports states that more than 31,000 people in England are still waiting for their first cancer treatment, which will not do. When will the Government publish a properly resourced, properly staffed national recovery plan for cancer care?

Maria Caulfield: I reassure the hon. Gentleman that cancer has been an absolute priority throughout this pandemic, and treatment and services have continued. I thank all those working in cancer care for making sure that has happened. Ninety-five per cent. of people started treatment within a month of diagnosis throughout the pandemic, and there have been more than 4 million urgent referrals and 960,000 people receiving cancer treatment during that time.

Wes Streeting: Geoff Cosgrave was admitted to hospital in mid-November with kidney cancer that had spread through his lymph nodes and lungs. Last week, his wife Glynis contacted me in desperation because he was unable to access treatment to clear the blockage in his lungs as the thoracic ward at the nearby hospital had closed because of staffing shortages. After frantic and desperate chasing by his family and  NHS staff, he was finally admitted to Bristol Royal Infirmary last week, but unfortunately his condition had deteriorated so he could not receive treatment. Geoff died on Friday and I am sure the whole House will want to send their deepest condolences to Geoff’s family. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Glynis wants me to place on record her family’s enormous thanks to the NHS staff who cared for Geoff, and to ask the Minister what the Government are doing to address the serious understaffing in the NHS, and the covid pressures that are having an impact on cancer care, so that no family has to suffer what the Cosgrave family are experiencing right now.

Maria Caulfield: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I put on record—I am sure this is shared by the whole House—our sympathy for Geoff and his family. There is no doubt that despite cancer being a priority throughout the pandemic, there have been pressures on the system. I again thank the staff, as Geoff’s family have, for carrying on throughout. I want to reassure the hon. Gentleman that the NHS is focusing on recovering cancer services to pre-pandemic levels; an additional £2 billion of funding was made available to the NHS and there were 44,000 more staff from October 2020. We are absolutely committed to getting back on track for pre-pandemic levels. Cancer has always been a priority. That is no comfort to Geoff and his family, but hopefully they can be assured that we are doing all we can.

Topical Questions

Chris Bryant: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Sajid Javid: Eight weeks ago, when this House last met for Health and Social Care questions, the world had not even heard of the omicron variant; but a third of the total number of UK covid-19 cases have been recorded since then. The action the Government have taken in response to omicron, and the collective efforts of the British people, have seen us become the most boosted and tested country in Europe, and the country with the most antivirals per head in Europe. That is why we are the most open country in Europe. I have always said that the restrictions should not stay in place a day longer than is absolutely necessary. Due to those pharmaceutical defences and the likelihood of our having already reached the peak of case numbers and hospitalisations, I am cautiously optimistic that we will be able to substantially reduce measures next week. The best thing we can all do to continue that progress is get boosted now.

Chris Bryant: May I put on record my gratitude to the Secretary of State for all the help he provided to my constituents before Christmas? He went beyond the call of duty, and I am very grateful to him.
The aftershock is often worse than the earthquake. My anxiety about covid is that it was the earthquake, but we still have the aftershock to come—that is, all the problems in cancer care, and the lack of doctors in emergency medicine, as well as in so many other disciplines. How will we make sure that the 6 million people on waiting lists get the care that they really need, and that the number does not grow over the next few months?

Sajid Javid: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise this issue, and I thank him for his comments at the start. We all know, as we have just heard from the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield), that the NHS in particular and social care have been under huge pressure; I think it has been the most challenging time in their history. Everyone has performed in a way that we can all be proud of. Despite that, we have seen a huge rise in electives, and I think that the number will go higher before it goes lower, because so many people stayed away when they were asked to. I want them to come forward. I want them to know that the NHS is open for them. We will support it with a bigger workforce and more investment, including the £36 billion of extra investment from the new NHS and social care levy.

Lucy Allan: Delays in cancer diagnosis and treatment have had tragic consequences for some of my constituents. What is my right hon. Friend doing to improve cancer survival rates?

Sajid Javid: My hon. Friend raises an issue that is very close to my heart, and the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) rightly raised it a moment ago, too. The pandemic has exposed huge health disparities in this country. It is clear to me that we need to go much further on cancer, not only to catch up on cancer referrals, diagnosis and treatment and radical innovation, but to improve the persistently poor outcomes that patients in this country have long experienced compared to those in other countries. It is time we launched a war on cancer. I am working on a new vision to radically improve the outcome for cancer patients across the United Kingdom, and I will have more to say on that in due course.

Wes Streeting: Keeping the Secretary of State on the subject of cancer, half of all patients with suspected breast cancer are not seen within the recommended two weeks. In two months, the number of patients who were not able to see a specialist in the target period has gone from 5,000 to 23,000—a far steeper increase than for all other forms of cancer—so I ask the Secretary of State: has breast cancer care been deprioritised?

Sajid Javid: Of course it has not been deprioritised. No cancer has been deprioritised. As the House has heard again today, we have seen an impact on healthcare across the country because of this terrible pandemic, including, sadly, on cancer care. Whether we are talking about breast cancer or other forms of cancer, they all remain a priority, including during the omicron wave; the NHS has made it absolutely clear that cancer remains a priority. As I said—I hope the hon. Gentleman agrees—we need to do more on cancer. I know that he cares deeply about this; he is right to have raised it twice in the past hour, and I hope that he will work with the Government on it.

Wes Streeting: I am going to raise it a third time, because it is very clear that breast cancer care is worse than care for other forms of cancer. The Secretary of State needs to account for that and tell us what he will do about it. On cancer more broadly, it is not good  enough to return to the situation pre-pandemic, because as much as he wants to blame covid pressures for delays in cancer treatment, we went into the pandemic with waiting lists at 4.5 million, and with staff shortages of 100,000 in the NHS and of 112,000 in social care, which impacted on broader NHS performance. Where is the plan to fix the workforce challenge in the NHS? That is the biggest single challenge that will impact on his mission—the mission we all share—to improve cancer outcomes for everyone in the country.

Sajid Javid: The hon. Gentleman will know that survival rates from cancer were increasing before the pandemic, but as I think the whole House understands, the pandemic has had an impact on all other types of healthcare, including cancer. This is a challenge throughout the United Kingdom. He talks about waits for breast cancer treatment; those are longer in Wales, so this is an issue throughout the UK. It is right that we continue to focus on the workforce. We have 44,000 more health workers than we did in October 2020, and we will continue to build on that.

Derek Thomas: Vast numbers of children and adults right across Cornwall cannot get access to an NHS dentist. That is not about funding, covid or even a lack of dentists; it is just that the contract under which they work is no longer fit for purpose. Next year, the responsibility for dentistry comes to Cornwall. Could we perhaps have a statement from the Minister about how we can reform that contract, which no longer works and keeps dentistry away from people who need it?

Maria Caulfield: My hon. Friend gets to the nub of the problem. The 2006 contract, which was introduced under the last Labour Government and is dependent on UDAs—units of dental activity—creates perverse disincentives for dentists to take on NHS work. We are already starting work on reforming that.

Martyn Day: We will not globally defeat covid if large proportions of the global population do not have access to vaccinations. The UK is one of a small number of countries blocking the TRIPS— trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights—waiver. Will the UK Government stop blocking the vaccine intellectual property waiver, and allow nations to manufacture the vaccines themselves?

Sajid Javid: The hon. Gentleman is right about the importance of helping the whole world to acquire these life-saving vaccines. That is why the UK can be proud of the more than 30 million vaccines that it has delivered to developing countries already. We will meet our commitment to increase that to 100 million by June, but we do not agree with the suggestion about the TRIPS waiver, because it will make future access to life-saving vaccines much more difficult.

John Lamont: I was delighted by the recent announcement of £50 million for motor neurone disease research, which my constituent Doddie Weir campaigned for tirelessly. Will the Secretary of State  update the House on the steps being taken to allocate those funds, and to ensure that is done as quickly as possible, as time is of the essence for MND sufferers?

Sajid Javid: My hon. Friend is right to raise that point, and I commend him on the fantastic work that he has done in leading this campaign. We were delighted to announce £50 million of funding for MND research. That will support a new MND research unit, which has already started work to co-ordinate research applications, and a new MND partnership, which will be formed to pool expertise across the research community.

Sarah Green: Last week, the Royal College of Physicians reported that one in five doctors felt “overwhelmed almost every day”. One doctor in my constituency told me that every single member of staff at their surgery was either receiving counselling, on antidepressants or signed off work with stress, compounded by what they perceived as GP-bashing in the media. With that in mind, may I ask the Secretary of State what steps his Department is taking to protect the mental health of GPs and NHS workers?

Sajid Javid: The hon. Lady is right to raise that issue. Healthcare workers have been under significant pressure, especially over the past two years, and of course that applies to GPs. The support we have provided through the winter access fund—the £250 million—is there to help GPs’ surgeries across the country, including with their workforce.

Caroline Ansell: My hospital trust is looking to redesign ophthalmology and cardiology services across its two hospitals, Eastbourne District General Hospital and Conquest Hospital in Hastings. The trust puts forward an important clinical case for the change, but given the realities—the road, the distance and the public transport options, which mean that it can be a journey of two hours via two buses for the one in four households in Eastbourne that do not have a car—any change can present a real problem and create issues for local people. Ahead of his visit to Eastbourne, will my hon. Friend the Minister meet me here to discuss this vital question of access to hospital services?

Edward Argar: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Public consultation on the reconfiguration in East Sussex was launched on 6 December last year and will close on 11 March. She is right to highlight access and transport links as a key factor in such decisions, and I would of course be delighted to meet her.

Chris Law: Only 9% of people in low-income countries have received one vaccine dose. The UK Government have delivered less than one third of their pledged contributions to COVAX. Given that no one is safe until everyone is safe, what assessment has the Secretary of State made of the risk to public health from emerging variants from the unvaccinated worldwide, and will he ensure that all doses pledged will be delivered to COVAX by the  end of June?

Maggie Throup: From the start of the pandemic, the UK has worked to support equitable access to covid-19 vaccines. It helped to establish the international joint procurement initiative COVAX, which supports higher and lower-income countries in securing the vaccines they need. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has indicated, we are committed to delivering 100 million doses by mid-June; we had delivered more than 30 million by the end of 2021. The UK leads the way on variants through the UK Health Security Agency, and we are willing to progress that technology throughout the world.

Cherilyn Mackrory: Building the women’s and children’s hospital at the Royal Cornwall Hospital was a key promise of this Government, and the Secretary of State’s predecessor was very supportive of it. Will my hon. Friend reaffirm the Department’s commitment to the building and agree to meet me to ensure that everything is done to get this vital project delivered on time?

Edward Argar: We remain fully committed to the delivery of the important new women’s and children’s hospital in Truro for the Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust as part of our new hospital programme. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State remains committed to it, and of course I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend.

Chi Onwurah: I hope you are watching “Geordie Hospital”, Mr Speaker—the Channel 4 series that follows the talented, highly skilled, dedicated and wonderfully witty staff of Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. As we enter our third pandemic year, after a decade of under-investment and low pay, and with staff shortages, absences and NHS waiting lists all rising, I hope that the Secretary of State recognises that what NHS staff need, as well as a great sense of humour, is a long-term workforce plan. Will he bring one forward?

Sajid Javid: First, I commend everyone working in the Newcastle hospitals trust and across the NHS for everything they are doing. The hon. Lady is right to talk about the importance of the workforce—that is why we have asked Health Education England to come up with a 15-year workforce framework—but she knows that the resources that the NHS has make a big difference, and it would have helped if she had supported the Government’s record investment of £36 billion over the next three years in the NHS and social care.

Damien Moore: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House how he is making it easier for transport workers, who are disproportionately under-vaccinated, to get their jabs and get this country moving?

Maggie Throup: We are intent on making vaccines as accessible as possible, so there are now more vaccination sites than at any point in the programme. They operate 12 hours a day, seven days a week where possible, including at hundreds of walk-in and pop-up sites. In every community, there should be slots available at least  16 hours a day; in some places, that is extended to 24 hours a day to support workers such as those in the transport sector, who often work unsociable hours.

Dan Carden: The Secretary of State has introduced guidance for essential care givers so that family members can visit loved ones in care homes. Is he considering going further to guarantee the right to visit residents in care homes and patients in hospitals?

Gillian Keegan: The hon. Member makes a very good point. It is important that people get the right to visit their loved ones in care homes. That is why we have introduced guidance that says that essential care givers should get access to care homes at all points, even during outbreaks. There is a process, which the Care Quality Commission manages, for reporting those that do not comply, but if there are specific examples, I am very happy for him to write to me with details and I will follow it up.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee.

Jeremy Hunt: This morning, the Health Secretary is reported in The Times as saying that the NHS can learn from the way in which academy chains are regulated, but he will know that the education system has no national targets, while the NHS uses more national targets than any healthcare system anywhere in the world. Will he look at the role of targets and the risk that they focus managers on bureaucratic numbers, sometimes at the expense of quality of care for patients?

Sajid Javid: I very much agree with my right hon. Friend; as the whole House knows, he speaks with considerable experience. We need to do things differently, especially as a result of the pandemic and the challenges that it has created. That requires reform, and we will set out further reforms in due course. He is absolutely right about targets: they can play an important role, but they can also lead to poor outcomes for patients, and all targets need to be properly reviewed.

Dan Jarvis: Sheffield’s Weston Park Cancer Centre is one of just four specialist cancer facilities in the country, but it desperately needs a £50 million upgrade, as the Secretary of State will know because I raised the matter with his predecessor and wrote to the Secretary of State in October and again just last week. Will he urgently respond to the proposal, which is vital for cancer outcomes in South Yorkshire?

Edward Argar: We will endeavour to respond swiftly, but if the hon. Gentleman would like to meet me about capital funding for those sorts of projects, I am always happy to meet him.

Lee Anderson: Now then: the Health Secretary will be aware that King’s Mill Hospital in Ashfield was built under a disastrous private finance initiative deal under the last Labour Government. It now costs us about £1 million a week to service the debt—money that could be spent on social care in Ashfield. Will he meet me to discuss how we can rid my trust of this crippling debt of £1 million a week and spend it on social care?

Edward Argar: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the impact of yet another of Labour’s disastrous PFIs on the funding available to our NHS, and indeed to social care. We continue to work hard to deliver our manifesto commitment to improve on those disastrous PFI schemes. I am very happy to meet him to discuss the matter.

Rachel Hopkins: Just last month, Luton lost an outstanding champion in the other place with the sad passing of Lord Bill McKenzie of Luton. Just 21 months previously, he had been diagnosed with pulmonary fibrosis.
Last week I met the chair of the Pulmonary Fibrosis Trust, one of my constituents in Luton South, who told me that there is no current cure for the disease and that for most people there is no known cause. Will the Secretary of State outline what steps his Department is taking to support research into a cure and to improve diagnosis, support and care for people living with pulmonary fibrosis?

Sajid Javid: I thank the hon. Lady for raising the matter in the House. Pulmonary fibrosis is a very serious condition. Far too many people suffer from it, and there   needs to be more research globally—not just here in the UK, but working with our international partners. I will bring the matter to the attention of my officials and see what more we can do.

Robert Goodwill: Sadly, the situation in Scarborough and Whitby for patients seeking a new NHS dentist is no better than that in St Ives, with thousands of UDAs going unused. Dentists tell me that it would help to have a date for the end of the UDA system so that they could start recruiting staff and, in some cases, building new premises to deliver NHS dentistry to local people.

Maria Caulfield: My right hon. Friend is correct. As I said earlier, the disastrous contract of 2006 is causing disincentives for NHS dentists to take on NHS work. I assure my right hon. Friend, however, that dental services in Scarborough are currently being commissioned by NHS England following the handing back of dental regional accountability. Procurement processes are in place, and a new practice is set to be in place by the summer.

Migrant Crossings: Role of the Military

Tobias Ellwood: (Urgent Question):  To ask the Minister for the Armed Forces to make a statement on the migrant channel issues and the role of the military.

James Heappey: Unacceptable numbers of people continue to make these dangerous channel crossings, and last November’s tragic deaths serve as the strongest reminder of the need to stop them. The Government have been exploring every avenue to prevent further crossings, and have now appointed the Ministry of Defence to take operational primacy for cross-channel counter-migration operations. That will mean a much larger and more visible role for the Royal Navy in operational planning, asset co-ordination and operational delivery.
As the Home Secretary explained during Home Office questions yesterday, the Home Office and the Ministry of Defence have worked closely on countering the small boats challenge through the military aid to civilian authorities process. Throughout the last 12 months Defence has provided a range of support, including the provision of surveillance aircraft, additional accommodation and planning expertise, and has assisted in the delivery of trials for novel tactics to help Border Force and the Home Office to better interdict and deter migrant vessels.
Details of how Defence will deliver and maintain the primacy of cross-channel counter-migration operations are currently being worked through. The Government’s objective is that no one should arrive illegally in the United Kingdom on their own terms, and all vessels transporting illegal migrants across the channel must therefore be intercepted before, or as, they land. Defence is committed to delivering that step change. Details of how it will be achieved will be made known in due course, but the House can be reassured that the MOD is working hand in hand with the Home Secretary and her Department to achieve this goal while ensuring the safety of all individuals involved and protecting other Defence priority output.

Tobias Ellwood: I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification.
We are rightly proud of our armed forces, who watch our backs and defend our interests across the world, and who are equipped and trained to step forward and assist other Government Departments in times of emergency. However, the bigger picture is clear to see. Our world is becoming more dangerous and more complex, and demands on our military—not least the Royal Navy—are increasing. The integrated review maps out the importance to the UK economy of retaining the freedom of the seas, increasingly challenged by China, Russia and, indeed, Iran. The Defence Committee’s recent review of the Royal Navy concluded that it is now too small to meet its current commitments in the Atlantic, in the Mediterranean, in the Gulf, off east Africa, in the Caribbean and in the Arctic, and, of course, with the tilt to the Indo-Pacific. Yet here we are introducing another task: co-ordinating the migrant crossing response, which is normally the responsibility of the Home Office.
As the Minister said, the migrant channel issue is complex and is not likely to go away soon. It is not an acute emergency, so why is the Navy being drawn in, even in this limited capacity? I say “limited”; the Minister spoke of “operational primacy”, and he is now responsible for it. There is a real danger of mission creep, with further navel assets being sucked into this challenge. Please will the Minister explain who will pay for this mission, what success looks like, and how long the task will last?
This tactic may, on the face of it, look popular, with 28,000 migrants now crossing every year—“send in the Navy to sort it out”—but it is not the strategy that will solve the problem of the movement of migrants. We need first to break up the gangs who encourage migrants in the first place, and secondly to help restore governance and security in the very countries from which these people are fleeing—places such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya and Somalia. Ironically, those are parts of the world where we have used our own hard power to intervene but then departed before there was enduring stability, and now families are fleeing towards Europe.
Unless the fires are put out at source, we will never reduce the numbers. We need a broader strategythan simply tasking the Navy to the channel, which will not be the answer.

James Heappey: I thank my right hon. Friend for elaborating on his urgent question. I take issue with his point that the Navy has to make a binary choice between work at home and work overseas. Ships are deployed all over the world right now, and other ships are making ready to set to sea in response to whatever crises may unfold in the Euro-Atlantic over the coming weeks.
In addition, there is capacity to do as we do year round, which is to deploy naval resources into the channel for purposes such as fishery protection and, indeed, securing our border. That is an important point. The purpose of our nation’s armed forces is to secure the UK’s national security interests both at home and abroad, and I would argue that deploying our armed forces to ensure that our borders are robust is a perfectly appropriate use of them. Indeed, as I know my right hon. Friend is very aware, there are parts of Europe right now in which state-sponsored illegal migration is being used as a sub-threshold weapon of competition. I am not suggesting for a second that the migration across the channel is that right now but, in the absence of robust defence of our borders, it could be in the future, and the MOD therefore has a perfectly reasonable role to play in ensuring that our borders are robustly protected.
My right hon. Friend specifically asked about pay. Clearly this will be a multi-agency effort under Royal Navy command. Where agencies are already doing things in the channel, they will continue to be funded by the Departments that own them.
Success is that we do not allow anybody to land in the UK on their own terms. For how long? Until the deterrent effect is achieved and the cross-channel route for small boats collapses.
There is a limit to my right hon. Friend’s question, which is the role of the Royal Navy and the military within the channel—that is what I am here to answer today—but I completely agree that this is just one part  of a wider system. Indeed, he is right to note that the MOD has plenty of equity in providing stability in countries such as Iraq and in the Sahel, where the majority of migrants are coming from, and we are engaged in that.
Nobody is pretending that the presence of a rear admiral and a few extra Royal Navy ships solves this issue. It is regrettable that only part of the Government’s solution should appear in the papers, and I will do my best to answer any questions my right hon. Friend asks.

John Healey: This Government now really are desperate. They are desperate to distract attention from accusations about the Prime Minister lying and partying in Downing Street, and they are desperate to prop up a Home Secretary who has been utterly failing for two years as the number of cross-channel migrants has tripled. The military are there to protect the nation, not Tory Ministers.
The Minister has confirmed today that the armed forces will be involved in what he calls operational delivery. He says the details are still being worked through, so let me try again. What will the armed forces now do? Will naval vessels be deployed in the channel? Will the Navy be used to push back migrant boats? Will the Navy use sonic weapons, as No. 10 wants? Will it step up the use of drones for surveillance? Will it transport migrants from British beaches? What military accommodation will be used to house and process migrants? We are told by the media that Rear Admiral Utley has been put in charge. To whom will he report, the Home Secretary or the Defence Secretary?
This announcement is official confirmation that the Home Secretary is failing. Our armed forces are always the Government’s last resort. The military aid to the civil authorities code means such assistance is granted only when
“the civil authority lacks the necessary capability to fulfil the task”.
Who will pay the military’s bills for this work? What will be the arrangements for co-operation between the UK and French military? The Minister promised me last month that he would
“publish details of Military Aid to the Civil Authorities…tasks on a fortnightly basis beginning in January 2022. These updates will be placed in the Library of the House.”
When will he actually do this, and will he publish the detailed terms of this MACA agreement?
The Navy was used before, in 2019. Two patrol vessels were redeployed from defence tasks to the channel. They intercepted no boats, at a cost of £780,000 to the taxpayer. Will the Minister guarantee that this military deployment in the channel will not compromise our armed forces in any of their fundamental defence tasks? When will the Home Secretary step up to do her job to secure a proper security agreement with the French, break the smuggling gangs, and prevent more tragic deaths of migrants in the channel?

James Heappey: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his questions. I do not share his view of the Home Secretary; we have worked closely with her on a number of issues, including Op Pitting over the summer, where she made a number of courageous decisions about how to accelerate border flow at the Baron Hotel, and indeed  throughout the past year when the MOD has been trying to support the Border Force. The fact is that this is not a MACA request; it is something quite different. It is asking the Navy to take primacy, from a command-and-control perspective, to bring to bear all the Government’s maritime assets that set sail, across all agencies, in order to try to cohere a more robust response at sea. It is an evolution of what we have been doing rather than a replacement of something that had previously existed.
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, there may be a requirement for more naval assets—warships—to be in the channel, but they sit too high off the water to be a credible platform from which to cross-deck people from a dinghy, so the presence of naval assets is probably from a command-and-control perspective rather than from an interdiction or interception perspective. There are better platforms within the Government’s inventory, and things that we can lease from the open market, that will be much more effective for mid-channel cross-decking under RN command and control.
Neither the Royal Navy nor the Royal Marines will be engaged in pushback, but that tactic has been developed by Border Force, and if it is applicable it will be used. The Royal Navy will not use sonic weapons. The Royal Navy or the wider military may be involved in transportation of people when they reach the shore as they enter the processing system. There may be a use for military accommodation. As I said, this is a UQ responding to a partial revelation of the plan, and I make no apology for the wider plan being still in development.
Rear Admiral Utley continues to report to the fleet commander, who reports to the First Sea Lord, who reports to the Secretary of State. Costs will lie where they fall, other than for novel capabilities, in which case there will be a chat with the Treasury. The MOD and the Navy enjoy excellent relations with the French MOD and the French Navy. We are confident in our ability to manage the cross-channel relationships.
I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman if I promised him an update on MACAs; I forgot that I had done so and I will make sure that that is rectified.

Richard Drax: I welcome my hon. Friend’s statement. I do not see any problem with the Royal Navy getting involved with this issue. For weeks—for years—those on the Opposition Benches have been whingeing and whining that we are not doing enough. It is excellent that the military are taking control and that we are co-ordinating all the assets that we have. It makes perfect sense. When a ship intervenes somewhere in the middle of the channel, will it have the power to take the people back to France, where legally they should be, or do we have to take them into our country and then face all the problems of removing them if indeed they should not be here?

James Heappey: No. There is no power to enter another country’s sovereign waters to return people. This evolution in the capability of command and control means that there is a more robust response at sea so that nobody lands on their own terms and they enter a process in the United Kingdom that may take them to return or to some other outcome. The evidence in Australia and elsewhere is that that very quickly has a  deterrent effect. I am answering questions on merely a part of the plan, and the House can sense my discomfort at being unable to illuminate it fully.

Dave Doogan: Let me start by underlining what a worrying development this is from the Government, both operationally and morally. The motivation to militarise this situation, in which desperate people make perilous crossings to reach safety and security, is immediately apparent, to say the least: this is the use of military camouflage to disguise a political crisis at the heart of the Government. We are talking about the Ministry of Defence, which is charged with the defence of the state and its people against external state or terrorist malign activity, threat or attack; not in any recent cogent assessment has the MOD or our armed forces been reconfigured to protect the state against civilians.
Will the Minister update the House on the admiralty’s critical analysis of whether to undertake significant maritime operations in respect of civilian subjects that are fraught with operational and reputational risk to the Royal Navy? Will he confirm that the Home Office request goes way beyond the realms of military aid to the civil authorities and instead represents an alarming politically expedient morphing of a civilian crisis into an entirely inappropriate military operation that is doomed to fail?

James Heappey: I take issue with the premise of the hon. Gentleman’s question, which was that people need to get into a small boat to find sanctuary. They are coming from France, which is a safe country. Those who continue their journey do so because they want to be in the United Kingdom, not because they are scared of where they are.
As for the idea that the MOD is not configured to protect against civilian threats, we have just been through two decades of counter-insurgency and reconfiguring to deal with the emergence of sub-threshold threats. Threat no longer wears a uniform or drives around in a painted military vehicle that flies a flag; it is increasingly likely that the threats posed to the United Kingdom come not from military sources. Of course the Ministry of Defence, which is charged with the defence of the homeland, has a role to play in ensuring that our borders are more robustly protected.

Mark Francois: I welcome the announcement that the military are finally to be brought in to supersede Border Force—or, as some of my constituents refer to it, “taxi force”. We need to add credibility to this announcement, so, first, what operational name is the mission to be given; which armed forces units are likely to be involved; and thirdly, if they are not going to be involved in pushback or to deploy sonic weapons, what are they actually going to do?

Angus MacNeil: Its name is Operation Red Meat!

James Heappey: My former boss on the Energy  and Climate Change Committee, the hon. Member for  Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil), is sure that he knows the name of the operation, but I am afraid he is wrong: its name is Operation Isotrope. In all  probability, the units involved initially will be some of the batch 1 offshore patrol vessels that are permanently committed to home waters, probably with some P2000s.
As I said earlier in response to the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), when he pointed out that military warships have not previously been applicable in mid-channel cross-deckings, their height off the water makes them an inappropriate platform to be hands-on in the process; their role will be one of command and control, if, indeed, anything at sea. The reality is that, as I think my right hon. Friend appreciates, the Government have a large inventory of maritime assets. We argue that if the full spectrum of those maritime assets were brought to bear on this problem and cohered under a military command structure, that would provide a step change in capability.
My right hon. Friend will be disappointed that the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines will not be using pushback tactics, sonic weapons or whatever else but, as I have said clearly in response to previous questions, Border Force has been trialling those tactics and they may have a purpose. That is all part of the ongoing military estimate. I would argue that the deterrent effect is achieved not just through an ability to push back mid-channel, with all the problems that come with that. If we can guarantee that nobody gets to land in the UK on their own terms and that the system beyond that delivers an effective outcome that acts as a deterrent for those deciding to put themselves in the people traffickers’ hands, this approach could and should work.
My right hon. Friend will be frustrated that I am unable to unveil the full scope of the plan. That is partly because I do not know it. I also think that the Prime Minister would like to do that himself later in the month.

Luke Pollard: The Minister said that the Royal Navy will not use sonic weapons, but long-range acoustic weapons are already fitted to Border Force vessels. As the Royal Navy has assumed operational control of Border Force, will he state that no Border Force sonic weapons will be used for migrant crossings? Will he also publish a rule of engagement for using sonic weapons against civilians? Even the leaking and spinning of that suggests a really dark force that we do not need in the debate.

James Heappey: I take the hon. Gentleman’s point. If Border Force vessels are fitted with a capability that the Royal Navy commander feels is inappropriate for use, he will not direct that it is used. That is his judgment. The hon. Gentleman, as the proud MP of the Royal Navy in Devonport, probably appreciates that in the MOD we deal with operational mission command and the Royal Navy uses its judgment to bring to bear what it thinks is best. I trust Rear Admiral Utley entirely to make the right decisions in that regard.
I will be honest with the hon. Gentleman: I am not entirely clear about the custom for publishing rules of engagement. Perhaps he will let me write to him with that in due course.

Andrew Bowie: Can my hon. Friend guarantee that no resource—be that manpower or asset—will be removed from another theatre to which an already overstretched Royal Navy is  currently deployed, carrying out its primary role of protecting the UK and its interests, and those of our allies around the world?

James Heappey: I can. Commander UK Strike Force is a UK-based two-star commander—I suspect that my hon. Friend, as a former Navy man, knows that—and the ships mentioned as possibly having utility in this context are already committed to home waters.

Kevan Jones: Well, there we have it. Yesterday, No. 10 was briefing that this is the new tough approach to migrants, and today the Minister comes to the Dispatch Box and says that he has not got a clue what the plan is or what is proposed. He mentioned deployment of assets. We had nine offshore patrol vessels until 2019, when HMS Clyde was decommissioned; others are committed overseas, including in the Pacific, and in home waters for tasks such as fisher protection. So what assets are there? There are not any.
May I check two things? First, will the Navy abide by the UN conventions on people in distress at sea? Secondly, the Minister said that Rear Admiral Utley will answer to the Defence Secretary, so has the MOD taken over control of Border Force and its operation, with the Home Secretary having no role? If so, that is a huge kick in the teeth for the Home Secretary.

James Heappey: First, the OPV fleet is well deployed around the world. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, Trent is in Gibraltar having just got back from autumn in the gulf of Guinea; Medway is in the Caribbean; Forth is in the Falklands; and Tamar and Spey are in the south Pacific and far east. Further, three batch 1 OPVs continue and are routinely deployed in home waters. That is not just for fishery protection, as he sought to characterise; they routinely take on the role of fleet-ready escort and are used for whatever is required to protect the United Kingdom’s interests in her home waters, and this task clearly comes within that bracket.
I am disappointed that the right hon. Gentleman felt it necessary to ask whether the men and women of the Royal Navy would still feel bound by their compulsion under the safety of life at sea convention. Of course they would. The Chief of the Defence Staff is a sailor, and Rear Admiral Utley is obviously a sailor, and they have been clear throughout that military involvement is about delivering a robust plan, but they will not endanger life at sea.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about how this is all reflected in Government policy and ownership of policy. I reflect back to him that Rear Admiral Utley is a sailor working within the MOD for a part of our border protection that has been placed into the hands of the Royal Navy. He clearly reports through his chain of command to the Secretary of State for Defence, but that is not the totality of the Government’s migration policy nor the totality of the role of protecting our borders. Obviously, the Home Secretary owns the wider system and she is doing a good job in doing that.

Desmond Swayne: Did Operation Sophia in the Mediterranean not teach us that increased efficiency of interception leads to an increased number of attempted crossings? This policy will have the reverse effect of that intended, won’t it?

James Heappey: No, I do not think that is the case. There was a key difference with Op Sophia, and that is what happened when people landed on the European continent and what EU nations did with them thereafter.

Diane Abbott: The Minister will be aware that in 2019 two Navy patrol vessels were deployed in the channel to deal with channel crossings. Yet they intercepted no boats and it cost the taxpayer £780,000. What will be different this time?

James Heappey: It is unclear whether the right hon. Lady is reading from Hansard because that is exactly the question asked by the Front-Bench spokesman, which I have answered already.

Mark Pritchard: Behind the criminal gangs often lie the root causes of disease, famine, poverty, poor governance, conflict and war. We have heard reference today to Syria, Iraq and Libya. My hon. Friend mentioned the Sahel. What discussions has he had with his defence counterpart in the French Government about President Macron’s decision to withdraw the 5,000 troops based in the Sahel, which of course will stretch UK armed forces further in that important region?

James Heappey: We speak to our French counterparts regularly, and the Sahel is a frequent topic of conversation. The French would argue that they are going through a transition from one operation to another—from Barkhane to Takuba—but that is clearly a decision for France. The UK’s commitment in the Sahel through the UN peacekeeping mission operation MINUSMA and our support to the French through Op Newcombe remains in place, but it will not surprise my right hon. Friend to know that the UK is looking for opportunities all the time to do more in western Africa. We recognise that the instability in the Sahel poses a direct threat to the UK’s interests. Indeed, were it not for the telegraphing of the intent of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) to ask the urgent question, I would have been in Accra today having exactly those conversations. But it is a pleasure to be here answering these questions.

Alistair Carmichael: I welcome what the Minister says about not using sonic weapons—an idea that was described by a Home Office source in the press today as “f***ng bonkers”. When the Home Office is saying that your idea can be classified as that, you have to think you have taken a wrong turn in your planning somewhere. May I press the Minister on the relationship between the Royal Navy and the Marines, on the one hand, and UK Border Force? He tells the House—I welcome the assurance—that the Royal Navy will not be engaged in pushing back boats with refugees in them, but that leaves open the door that the UK Border Force might still do that. In that case, how can he possibly say that operational primacy sits with the Royal Navy?

James Heappey: In answer to the right hon. Gentleman’s suggestion that there may be some disagreement between Departments, I can only reflect that my great friends the Under-Secretaries of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friends the Members for Corby (Tom Pursglove)  and for Torbay (Kevin Foster), work with me all the time, not just on this matter but on Op Pitting and all sorts of other issues where Home Office and MOD interests align. The right hon. Gentleman is right to note that I was clear that Border Force is developing a tactic. It may well be that the commander is comfortable with that tactic being employed, and there is a difference between the reason why the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines will not deploy that tactic and the reason why Border Force may. Border Force has the appropriate vessels, potentially, to do so safely; the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines do not.

Bob Stewart: Does the Minister consider that use of the Royal Navy will reduce the number of migrants who land in the United Kingdom?

James Heappey: I believe that it could, as part of a wider system that is under development.

Chris Bryant: The Minister calls it Operation Isotrope—not Isotope—which means having properties that apply in all directions. That pretty much sums it up. The honest truth is that it is Operation Red Meat, and it has no beef in it whatever. Nothing has changed. There is no plan—he admits that himself. The Government have completely failed to tackle the real issue, which many of our constituents worry about, and the people who bear the brunt of all this danger are those who are being illegally trafficked, many of them in miserable situations. The Government need to sort out the relationship with France and make sure we have a proper deal with the whole of the European Union so people can go back to the country where they originally landed. The Minister has used one phrase repeatedly today—that they will stop people landing “on their own terms”. What on earth does that mean?

James Heappey: First, there are a lot of questions coming from the Opposition about the incompleteness of a plan. I would just reflect that Labour is routinely and continually silent on what it would do to ensure that our borders are protected and illegal migration is stopped. As for the UK-French relationship, no one has pretended that the part of the plan that I am answering questions on today is, in and of itself, the answer to that challenge. Before it, there is a responsibility to have relationships with France and the EU within which that can be discussed; there is a requirement to attack the criminal networks that do the trafficking; and there is a requirement to deal with migration flows in the first place.
What “land on their own terms” means is that nobody gets to set foot on United Kingdom soil without having been intercepted and brought ashore by the Royal Navy or other agencies. They are then put into a system that I have every confidence will act as a deterrent to make the cross-channel route collapse thereafter.

Andrew Murrison: I declare an interest as a serving naval reservist. I appreciate that the Minister is being bounced into this, but he must have a plan. Can he say when that plan will be available, and on what date command and control of the operation will swap from the Home Office to the Ministry of Defence?

James Heappey: I do not know whether my right hon. Friend is asking me to better articulate the MOD’s plan, which I have been trying to do and am happy to elaborate on further, or to elaborate on the wider plan which, regretfully, I am not able to do. The MOD’s plan is to bring all of the Government’s maritime inventory under the command of Commander UK Strike Force. We believe that if all assets were better cohered, it would be possible to have a more robust interception capability in the channel. That then feeds into a wider requirement that other Departments are engaged in delivering to make sure that what happens next, combined with that certainty about our ability to intercept at sea, provides the deterrent that we have been seeking for the last year. The plan is that that primacy is in place by the end of the month.

Alison Thewliss: The Minister seems to forget the desperation of the people making these crossings. If there were alternative safe and legal routes, does he not think that people would take them rather than risking their lives in such a way? Is he aware that Human Rights Watch has condemned the regular and persistent degrading treatment of adults and children in Calais by the French authorities? It is hardly a safe country for them.

James Heappey: The hon. Lady’s final point, about France being a dangerous place, feels like something that is—

Alison Thewliss: For those people it is.

James Heappey: France is, in my view, an entirely safe country. Migrants do not need to put themselves into the hands of people traffickers to be smuggled across the channel. I hope that they will soon see that there is no point in doing so because they will not get to enter the UK on their own terms if they do.

Edward Leigh: In the absence of Ministers having the political will to use pushback, what is the point in appointing a royal naval admiral to help Border Force to be a more efficient taxi service so that the migrants will know, “Now we’ve got the Royal Navy to pick us up—we’ll be taken safely to the UK, we'll be put in a hotel and we'll never, ever be sent home”? This is just an embarrassment. Will the Minister now co-ordinate with his colleagues to do what we have been suggesting for months and get rid of the pull factors—namely, ensure that we reform any piece of legislation necessary, including the Human Rights Act, and that people who do the illegal crossing are arrested, put in a prison and deported?

James Heappey: My right hon. Friend’s exhortations and those of colleagues have been heard.

Ian Lavery: On a point of clarification, the reason why there are lots of questions from the Opposition is that this is an urgent question—that is what we are doing here.
I would like to ask the Minister whether the Government have seriously been considering using sonic boom weaponry against people seeking to come to this country in already hazardous conditions in the channel. Can he please explain to the House what impact that weaponry has  when used on individuals? May I also say that Operation Red Meat or Operation Save Big Dog—whatever you want to call it—is not in my name?

James Heappey: The hon. Gentleman’s last point is self-evident. The use of sonic weapons is something that people have been exploring around Government. The Royal Navy is clear that they will not be used by the Royal Navy. As the operation will be under Royal Navy command, it will be down to the Royal Navy commander whether he wishes other agencies to use them.

John Hayes: The people who come here genuinely seeking sanctuary and who fear persecution deserve our compassionate care. The people traffickers and those rights lawyers who encourage, facilitate and give succour to people who know that they are not seeking asylum—who are economic migrants—deserve our condemnation. The Minister has made it clear that this proposal can be only part of the solution. Will he arrange for a Minister—possibly the Home Secretary—to come to the House to reassure us that offshore processing, the deportation of illegal immigrants and secure accommodation for those awaiting deportation form part of the policy? May I say in addition that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) has just said, we must bring forward the reform of the Human Rights Act and other legislation as a matter of urgency?

James Heappey: My right hon. Friend will be pleased to know that he can expect to hear exactly what he hopes for very soon. It is unfortunate that today I have been required to come and expose part of the plan early, but that is my duty to you, Mr Speaker, and to the House. There will be a wider exposition of the plan in due course, I am certain.

Anne McLaughlin: The Royal Navy website says:
“Whether disasters are human-made or natural…Responding to these life-threatening scenarios is central to our ethos”.
Given that the Government have decreed that, contrary to what the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) just said, almost two thirds of people crossing the channel in these small boats are so-called genuine asylum seekers, does the Minister agree that any genuinely responsible politician would refuse to be involved in further endangering the lives of these desperately vulnerable people? Before he accuses me of reading from Hansard, as he did so rudely with the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), he said today that the Navy will not be involved in the pushback of people, but we all know that that could change tomorrow. Will he put on record his agreement that involving our Navy in pushing people back into dangerous waters would directly contradict that noble ethos?

James Heappey: I have somewhat more confidence in the Royal Navy than the hon. Lady does. I am absolutely certain that it can operate in the channel robustly, in the nation’s interest, but compassionately. As Royal Navy mariners, with all the fine traditions of that service, they are clear about their job and they will not threaten the life of innocent people.
On her point about vessels operated by the Royal Marines being involved in pushback, I have been very clear from the Dispatch Box that that will not happen. It cannot happen: the vessels are inappropriate for the practice.

Bob Blackman: We on this side of the House are determined to smash the gangs that charge desperate people thousands of pounds to take a perilous journey. It would be better if they did not undertake that journey in the first place, so what discussions has my hon. Friend had with the French military on intercepting boats before they set off and returning them to France, where they should belong?

James Heappey: Clearly, that is a conversation that we will be having, and would like to have, but all of that is with the Home Secretary, and I know she remains engaged with it.

Paul Blomfield: This is fast becoming as ludicrous as it is disturbing. Yesterday, the Home Secretary was unable to explain what the military could do that Border Force could not, and the Minister has failed again today. Everybody knows that this announcement coming at this time is part of the campaign to save the Prime Minister’s job. How does the Minister think the armed forces feel about being used for that purpose?

James Heappey: The Chief of the Defence Staff has been involved in all the conversations. As I have made clear, we should not be dismissive of the importance of securing our borders, not only from an immigration perspective but from a national security perspective. Migration is being used as a subthreshold weapon of competition elsewhere in Europe, and it cannot endure that our border is not properly secured.
The hon. Gentleman asks what the mindset is of the military. I can tell him that from the nation’s most senior serviceperson downwards, they take great pride in making sure that they play their part in the plan to deliver what the democratically elected Government set as priorities.

Philip Hollobone: This is not Operation Red Meat; it is Operation Dog’s Dinner. If the mission statement were to reduce illegal people trafficking across the channel, I would support it, but, as far as I understand it, the mission statement is to lower the number of people landing on their own terms on UK beaches.
With the deployment of royal naval vessels, the Minister has effectively announced that asylum seekers need get only halfway across the channel before being intercepted by the Royal Navy, under royal naval command. This will incentivise people traffickers. They will see the Royal Navy ship on the horizon and say, “Point your dinghy in that direction. You only need to get halfway,” and the Royal Navy will pick them up. The only way this will work is if the Royal Navy intercepts asylum seekers and returns them to France. Without the second bit, this simply will not work.

James Heappey: My hon. Friend knows that the last bit would be impossible without French permission, and French permission has not been given. I do not  accept his characterisation of what is being spoken about today. The Ministry of Defence mission is to make sure that nobody arrives in the UK on their own terms. [Interruption.] That means that nobody arrives in the UK without having been intercepted at sea or as they land. What happens next is that we will just have to wait a short while, and I am sure all will become clear.

Angus MacNeil: I am glad to see my old colleague from the Energy and Climate Change Committee doing so well in government. He will be aware of course that there is a vacancy coming up at the top quite soon, and I have high hopes for him that he will indeed go further.
I welcome that this has not been thought through very much—it is just like the rest of Operation Red Meat, to be honest—and I am glad that the Minister has indicated that the Navy will not intercept the small boats, unless, I would hope, there is a risk to life and there are people in distress, because around the world small boats have to be avoided for the terrorist risk. It will not take a terrorist with a PhD to see the opportunity of some of this, and I hope that the Government are thinking seriously about that. What assessment has been made of the terrorist risk both to the Navy and to the poor migrants, who are often escaping terrorists in the first place—as well as the efforts, of course, of international arms sellers—to find themselves in the channel?

James Heappey: The hon. Gentleman notes that the Royal Navy will not be directly involved in the interception of ships, and as I have explained, that is to do with the suitability of the vessel. However, I would not want him to think that that means we are not intending to intercept all dinghies. We are; it is just that there are better platforms to use for that under Royal Navy command and control.
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to identify—this is the point I have been seeking to illustrate—the justification for using the armed forces as part of this mission. Our adversaries, whether they are state or non-state, are very good at spotting where vulnerabilities are in countries. I would argue that the flow of migrants has reached a point where it is a threat to our national security, so it is entirely appropriate that the Royal Navy should play a role in the co-ordination of the response.

Martin Vickers: Any of my constituents watching these exchanges will note the comments of Opposition Members who are trying to pour cold water on a plan that my constituents actually want. They want to see an end to this cross-channel illegal immigration, and they will also be disappointed to hear from the Minister that plans are not yet finalised, because hints and announcements have been made about the use of the Navy for many months—years, probably—and our military are adept at putting together plans quickly to respond to emergency situations. Can the Minister at least give my constituents some hint of when a robust policy will be in place and the Navy will be involved?

James Heappey: Very imminently indeed, and I would certainly imagine within the next few weeks.

Jeremy Corbyn: In all the awful answers the Minister has given, he has not shown one iota of empathy for desperate people putting their own lives at risk to try to get to a place of safety, many of them coming from war zones around the world that Britain has been involved in. Can he not show some humanity and sympathy to these people and come to a European-wide agreement on support for asylum seekers and refugees? Can he not also look at the sources and at why people come, as well as the awful conditions that many face when they arrive in this country? These are human beings trying to survive in a very difficult world, and history will judge very harshly those Governments who use military means to repel refugees at the time of a refugee crisis around the world. Let us have some humanity, not just reach out to the military all the time.

James Heappey: I know that it was very much the right hon. Gentleman’s policy as Leader of the Opposition not to use the military at all, and probably to defund it as a consequence. I reject, however, the suggestion that we are not guided by a deep sense of compassion. The right hon. Gentleman is correct in observing that these people are desperate—so desperate, in fact, that they are putting themselves in the hands of exploitative criminal gangs that put them to sea in dinghies, increasingly in sea states that those dinghies are woefully ill-equipped to deal with. The responsible, compassionate response to this threat is to provide a robust deterrent so that people no longer put themselves in the hands of the criminal gangs, and that is exactly what we are doing.
If you will indulge me on a final point, Mr Speaker, the idea that conflicts in which I proudly served, as did hundreds of thousands of other British service personnel, are somehow the cause of why people are coming here now is utterly for the birds. Our nation’s armed forces are engaged around the world trying to provide stabilisation and security in some of the countries that need it most precisely so that people do not feel they need to take on the perilous journey across continents to the United Kingdom.

Joanna Cherry: I congratulate the Chair of the Defence Committee on securing this urgent question. He is absolutely right to say that this plan is not a long-term solution. As deputy Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, I have been pushing for the Home Office to consider our recommendation that claims to the UK asylum system should be able to be made from France, because the reason that people are desperate is that there is a dearth of safe legal routes to the United Kingdom. Can the Minister tell us what discussions he has had with the Home Office about that possibility as a long-term solution to the problem that would free up the Royal Navy for more appropriate duties?

James Heappey: The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove), is sitting beside me. As the hon. and learned Lady was asking her question, I was told that the French Minister of the Interior has said in the French Parliament that the hon. and learned Lady’s proposal would be completely unacceptable to France.

Andy McDonald: Red dog, dead dog, red meat—I don’t know what this is, but it is a total embarrassment. Pope Francis has denounced the
“narrow self-interest and nationalism”
in how European countries treat migrants and in how they
“persist in treating the problem as a matter that does not concern them”.
Is it not time, as the Pontiff says, to treat our brothers and sisters seeking sanctuary with compassion? Is it not time to attack the root causes, not the people who pay the consequences?

James Heappey: I would argue that that is exactly what our policy does. We are engaged around the world through our aid and military efforts to provide security and stabilisation in the countries from which most people are fleeing. I think that the work of our armed forces and of the brilliant people in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office who do international development is succeeding to an extent, but there is much more to be done. Criminal gangs are exploiting the most vulnerable, and it is right that we and our partners around the world get after those gangs to stop their work, because it is deeply insidious and malign.
It is also our responsibility to the people of this country to ensure that our borders are secure, for two reasons. First, it acts as a deterrent for those who are in France and are considering making an illegal crossing that will cost them their life savings and risk putting them to sea in a boat that is woefully ill-equipped for the sea state. Secondly, the people of the United Kingdom want control over their borders and over migration, and this Government are committed to delivering it.

Jonathan Edwards: Diolch, Mr Speaker. It is disappointing that the Minister has not ruled out pushback in his answers today, because it poses an obvious danger to life. In response to the announcement this week, navy sources have said that they deem pushback to be unethical. If Border Force implemented that policy and a small boat capsized, what would be the policy for Border Force staff?

James Heappey: I have been clear that the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines will not use the tactic, principally because they simply do not have the platforms that are appropriate for doing so. Arguably, the Border Force does; it has been doing trials with it, so it remains an option. But let us be clear: there are parts of the channel in which it definitely cannot be done, and there is a small part of the channel in which it might possibly be done. That is for the Navy commander to consider in due course.
Having a robust response that starts with the guarantee that we will intercept all boats either at sea or as they land, and then bringing people into a system that itself acts as a deterrent, is the right way to go. The people want the Government to get control of our borders—it is one of the Prime Minister’s top priorities. The MOD has a part of that plan, which we are confident in our ability to deliver; the rest of the plan will be unveiled in due course.

Andrew Gwynne: Since 2014, more than £200 million—about half a million pounds a week of taxpayers’ money—has been given to  France, yet crossings are increasing. The latest announcement will do absolutely nothing to halt those dangerous crossings. The Minister and the Government need to be smashing the criminal gangs. That is the reality; this is just red meat headlines, but more of the same failed policy.

James Heappey: The Government are introducing life sentences for people smugglers. We agree vigorously with the hon. Gentleman that the absolute key is to get upstream of the problem, prevent the migration flows in the first place ideally, and get straight after the organised crime gangs to attack the network. That is very much part of the plan, although not necessarily a part of the plan the MOD owns. As he would expect, that sits much more neatly in the Home Office and the National Crime Agency, and in the Foreign Office when it comes to diplomacy. As I have been clear throughout, it is suboptimal that I am able to unveil only our part of the plan in response to an urgent question today, but in due course the full system will be made clear.

Martin Docherty: Nearly five years on the Defence Committee has demonstrated to me that the woeful legacy of a decade of cuts to non-frontline services mean there is probably little option. The Defence Sub-Committee on contracted services to the MOD has also shown the pernicious effect of outsourcing services, such as those, for example, at HM Naval Base, Clyde, which affected so many of my constituents. Will the Minister give his word to the House today that there will be no private sector involvement in Operation Isotrope? If there is one thing we and the poor souls in the channel do not need, it is for Serco and Capita to get their tentacles into a very lucrative Government contract.

James Heappey: About 45 minutes ago, I was clear that there would be leased platforms that are far more appropriate for use in the channel. The hon. Gentleman suggests that this might be a contract with a single provider. That is not the case. What I am talking about is contracting platforms to come fully under command. I cannot say who they are owned by, but the names of the big conglomerates he just mentioned have not been mentioned.

Patrick Grady: Bringing in the military seems to be the Government’s solution to everything these days, to the extent that I was surprised it was not part of the Culture Secretary’s plan yesterday for the future of the BBC. Given the conflation of responsibilities, in particular around issues of aid and security, can the Minister confirm that there will be no creative accounting in any attempt to hive off the costs to the overseas development assistance budget, or, for that matter, the NATO 2% target?

James Heappey: I am not sure that the military is brought in for everything, as the hon. Gentleman says. Our country has just been through an extraordinary period. We are drawing on the mass, expertise and commitment of our armed forces to support the NHS and civilian authorities through the pandemic. I think that that is a sign of the extraordinary service and professionalism of the men and women in our armed forces. Actually, I think it is good that the Government  have been willing and able to draw on that capability throughout. As to his wider point, there is a requirement for a robust response. The Navy is able to bring that robustness not necessarily through the ships it can set to sea, but through its command and control, and through bringing all the Government’s maritime assets—there are many of them—to bear in a co-ordinated way. If we can do that, we can do things differently from how they have been done over the past few years.

Rachael Maskell: We must remember that we are talking about 25,000 people who came to the UK in this dangerous way last year, a threefold increase that proves the Government’s plans are simply not working. The only thing we do know is that creating safe routes takes away trade from criminal gangs. Why are the Government making the situation worse without having clear objectives, rather than addressing the real problem?

James Heappey: There are many safe routes to the UK. I have been very clear that the part of the plan I have been able to answer questions on in the House today is not the full breadth of what needs to be done. The hon. Lady is right that the most decisive things we can do on migration are upstream of the channel. If she can wait just a few weeks, I am sure she will be illuminated fully.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for his answers to questions. Recent figures show that in 2021 some 28,000 migrants crossed the channel in small boats. That number is rising. The UK has a long-established asylum system, but the use of military vessels sends an unfortunate message. There are many civilian companies every bit as efficient, so can the Minister confirm co-ordination between our Border Force, other vessels in the channel, and civilian companies that have the capability, expertise and the talent to do the job? That, Minister, could be a much better solution.

James Heappey: It is absolutely the case that there are more appropriate vessels for cross-decking people in the middle of the channel than Navy vessels and, indeed, Border Force cutters. There is already a vessel contracted for that purpose. Our expectation is that we would contract more of that design in order to play a role. That is not to hand it over to a company that runs all those vessels; that is to bring those vessels into service under the command of the Navy commander.

Coronavirus Grant Schemes: Fraud

Pat McFadden: (Urgent Question): To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he will make a statement on fraud in the coronavirus grant schemes.

John Glen: Since March 2020, the Government have delivered a comprehensive multibillion-pound package to support individuals and businesses during the pandemic. As the House would expect, the Government have taken the issue of potential fraud relating to covid grant schemes extremely seriously.
Robust measures were put in place to control error and fraud in the key covid support schemes from their inception. For instance, to minimise the risk of fraud and error and unverified claims, the coronavirus job retention scheme and self-employment income support scheme were designed in a way to prevent ineligible claims being made up front, and made grants for employees and businesses using existing data held on Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs’ systems. That included cut-off dates around scheme eligibility and the need for customers to be registered for pay-as-you-earn online or self-assessment. In 2020-21, HMRC recovered £536 million of over-claimed grants.
To further bolster anti-fraud measures, at the spring Budget last year, the Government invested more than £100 million in a taxpayer protection taskforce of more than 1,200 HMRC staff to combat covid-related fraud. This taskforce is expected to recover between £800 million and £1 billion from fraudulent or incorrect payments during 2021-22 and 2022-23.
The Government’s bounce back loan scheme supported more than £46 billion of finance to 1.5 million businesses. We are continuing to actively work with the British Business Bank, lenders and fraud authorities to tackle fraud and to recover loans obtained fraudulently. The value of prevented fraud was £2.2 billion, and we continue to recover further funds through our counter-fraud work. In addition, as part of the spring Budget last year, we announced plans to significantly strengthen enforcement activity against fraudulent bounce back loans. That included introducing processes with the Insolvency Service to prevent the fraudulent dissolution of companies being used as a means to escape liabilities, granting the Insolvency Service new powers and investing further in the National Investigation Service.
Importantly, throughout the pandemic we have been transparent about the estimated level of fraud and error in the covid schemes, and HMRC’s annual report and accounts, which were laid before the House in November last year, included the latest information on error and fraud in the HMRC-administered covid-19 schemes. Figures on estimated losses and the bounce back loans, including those due to fraud, were published in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy’s annual reports and accounts.
Given the unprecedented efforts that the Government have made to protect jobs and livelihoods during this pandemic, it would have been impossible to prevent all related fraud. However, we have taken reasonable steps, and will continue to do so, to deflect and combat that fraud, and we will continue to be vigilant.

Pat McFadden: I am grateful to the Minister. Last week, the Government confirmed that they expect to write off around £4.3 billion of the funds allocated to coronavirus help schemes. There was no press release, no Instagram video, no statement to this House and no sight of the vanishing Chancellor at all; it was just buried away on the Government website. The Government website states, and the Minister repeated the claim, that from the beginning:
“Robust measures were put in place to control error and fraud in the key coronavirus support schemes.”
If robust measures to prevent fraud were in place, why did they fail to this shocking degree?
In November, the head of HMRC estimated that around half the money lost could be recovered. Why has that estimate now been downgraded to only a quarter of the funds? Why are the Government giving up so easily and not doing more to track down the money, rather than allowing it to remain in the hands of the fraudsters and criminals who have stolen it from taxpayers?
Mr Deputy Speaker, £4.3 billion is a huge sum of money. It is enough to take hundreds of pounds off energy bills this year for every household in the country. It is about the same annual amount as the Chancellor took off people on universal credit in the Budget in November. It is roughly the same as half the annual policing bill for the whole country. This write-off of £4.3 billion comes as households face a cost-of-living triple whammy of rocketing energy bills, the Chancellor’s tax increases and a decline in real wages. Coming on top of the billions wasted on crony contracts and the amounts lost in loan schemes, these levels of waste destroy any claim that the Conservative party had of being careful stewards of the public finances. Will the Minister launch an investigation into how this happened and do more to recover this money from the fraudsters who stole it in the first place?

John Glen: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments, which I am very happy to address. First, we are not writing anything off. The figures quoted are what we expect that taxpayer protection taskforce to recover in the next two years in which it will exist. HMRC has longer to address fraud in the schemes, which it will do in the context of wider compliance activity. HMRC did not produce the figure of £4.3 billion. I understand that it was an inference made by journalists who subtracted £1.5 billion from the estimate of the amount to be recovered by the taxpayer protection taskforce from the £5.8 billion estimated as error and fraud in 2020-21. That was published and Jim Harra and others from HMRC publicised all this before Christmas—in November. HMRC simply used the same numbers in a “mythbuster” article to be published later this week.
Those are the facts. There is nothing new here today, but I would like to address some of the underlying concerns. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that fraud is unacceptable. We think that, which is why—as I said in my opening remarks—in March last year, the Chancellor dedicated £100 million to employ 1,265 people from HMRC to undertake these fraud checks and to bear down on the fraud. We have had 13,000 one-to-one inquiries and sent 75,000 letters to those thought to have incorrectly claimed.
I point out to the right hon. Gentleman, however, that many of these schemes were stood up, refined and adapted very quickly. In order to meet the needs of  individuals, the self-employed and businesses up and down the country, £81.2 billion of payments were made across the three main schemes. Although I recognise that there has been an element of fraud, the Government have never been complacent about that. Grants for employees and businesses used data on HMRC systems. The design of the scheme was informed by expert advice from HMRC, which has extensive knowledge and understanding of where errors and fraud risks lay. We have implemented post-payment compliance to identify and recover overpayment, and we have invoked automated controls into digital claim processes, which have prevented 100,000 ineligible, mistaken claims.
The Government are not complacent at all about error and fraud. We will continue to bear down on it, and I urge Members of the House and members of the public to continue to contact HMRC, as they have done, as we seek to maximise the recovery of moneys lost.

Kevin Hollinrake: I say to the Opposition that it is the easiest job in the world to stand on the sidelines and criticise, but what would they have done? Would they have waited and left businesses in peril? Would they have done that in search of the perfect? Some £407 billion has gone to businesses, the vast majority of which went to the right places. Of course there will be lessons to learn, but if the same situation happens again, will my hon. Friend prioritise the needs of business, rather than making the perfect the enemy of the good?

John Glen: I thank my hon. Friend for the clear point behind his question. We were straining every sinew in the Treasury to get money out as quickly as possible. On 14 April 2020, a Labour party press release stated:
“It is clear that additional action needs to be taken to increase the take-up of the different measures. We have called for urgent action…as take-up is worryingly low.”
That is why we intervened to change the design of the bounce back loan scheme and to make it 100% backed to get the money out quickly—£46 billion to 1.5 million businesses. I am sure that lessons can be learnt from what we have done—absolutely they can—but the principle of getting that money out and designing schemes with HMRC’s excellent input during that period was imperative for the Government.

Alison Thewliss: It seems, again, that when the going gets tough, the Chancellor goes missing.
HMRC said in its statement that fraud in the covid support schemes is in line with its original planning assumptions, but expecting this eye-watering level of fraud seems almost worse than it happening by accident. We see it also in the bounce back loan schemes. How much of the fraud relates to UK company structures and the related issues at Companies House, which make the UK such a magnet for money laundering?
As well as the Treasury being out of pocket, constituents of mine employed by companies deliberately employing dubious corporate structures did not even receive the furlough payments to which they were fully entitled. What consequences will there be for those companies, and for those people who never received the money that they were due, due to fraud and error? For the many people around these islands who received no support  whatsoever—those who were excluded from support schemes—this fraud and error is all the more galling. Will the Minister apologise to them and put that right? Finally, when HMRC is chasing down an estimated 170,000 families who claimed child benefit in error, why is it letting fraudsters and criminals waltz off with £4.3 billion of public money, all of this in the midst of a cost of living crisis? That money should be in the pockets of our constituents, not of criminals.

John Glen: I listened very carefully, as I always do, to the hon. Lady. I totally agree that we must not accept any fraud and error as inevitable, and we will continue to bear down on that. From the start we designed the schemes to involve “know your customer” and anti-money laundering checks on application. Measures were put in place by the British Business Bank to detect multiple applications—indeed, there was co-operation among UK Finance members on that. Subsequently, we have developed further interventions involving the National Investigative Service, the Insolvency Service and Companies House data to prevent rogue company directors from escaping liability. We will continue to bear down on the fraud that may have occurred. But initial data on the repayment of bounce back loans shows that in only 2% have borrowers defaulted, and only 7% are behind repayments in any form. There is no complacency in the Government’s approach, and we will continue to look at ways to maximise what we can reclaim where there have been errors and fraud.

Derek Thomas: It is right that we look carefully at how council tax payers’ money is spent, but let me refer to the current covid grant scheme, particularly for Cornwall. We in Cornwall need reassurance that Cornwall Council has absolute discretion in how to ensure that current leisure grants, for example, go to the businesses that most need them. At the moment, the council is saying that it has to pay the money to whoever applies, irrespective of how well their business is doing. My understanding from the Government is that, if a business is impacted by omicron, staff shortages, or reduced consumer demand, that is when the grant is paid. Could the Minister confirm to me, and to Cornwall Council, that it is for the council to ensure that the money goes where it is most needed, and that is what the Government intend?

John Glen: I can certainly confirm that the intention behind the range of interventions was to find the most appropriate delivery mechanism for the different support payments, and obviously we have worked with local authorities to give them that discretion. Every authority will need to be held to account for how it has decided to deliver the grants. My hon. Friend has made a clear case for where those priorities need to lie, and we are clear about the intention behind the grants, but it will be for local authorities throughout the country to make their decisions in the right way.

Nick Smith: Seventy-one million pounds of taxpayers’ money was fraudulently claimed through the eat out to help out scheme. How many arrests have been made, and are the criminals now enjoying prison food?

John Glen: I am sorry, but I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an exact answer. What I can say to him is that, according to HMRC, the expectation of fraud as part of that particular intervention in the summer of 2020 was about 8.5%, and the figures submitted by Jim Harra, the head of HMRC, in last year’s report were in line with the expectations set out at the start of this journey.

Philip Hollobone: Our much-loved Kettering gymnastics club provides sporting facilities for about 1,000 local young people every week. It is a not-for-profit club, registered with HMRC under the community amateur sports club scheme, and it operates as a club and not as a business. It has previously received covid grant funding from the council, but the later schemes issued in December 2021 seem to refer just to businesses, rather than to clubs. Can the Minister clarify the Government’s guidance to local authorities about whether clubs are eligible for the new funding?

John Glen: I recognise that the gymnastics club in Kettering, along with so many other clubs of that type around the country, provides an enormously valuable point of contact for young people. I should be happy to examine my hon. Friend’s point in detail and write to him with clarification, rather than dealing with it from the Dispatch Box. The principle of giving discretion to local authorities in order to meet the needs in particular communities has guided the Government throughout this process, and we have used this grant channel a number of times for that reason, but I will look as sympathetically as I can at the question that he has raised.

Meg Hillier: The Minister referred to default as though it were the equivalent of fraud. The Public Accounts Committee has examined in great detail the issue of fraud in this area. As I am sure he knows, there are grants and bounce back loans taken fraudulently that people will be repaying, but the criterion on which they obtained them was itself fraudulent.
The Minister seems to be accepting this level of fraud. Will he make a clear statement that fraud at all levels will be investigated? We gained the impression from HMRC and others who appeared before us as witnesses that they would take the low-hanging fruit and let a lot of fraud continue without being tracked down.

John Glen: I know that the hon. Lady’s Select Committee is conducting an in-depth inquiry. I believe that the second permanent secretary and others appeared before the Committee last week, and I look forward to its report.
I can absolutely clarify that we do see the distinction between a credit loss and fraud. What we are talking about here is: what are the most effective mechanisms, and over what timeframe, to get that money back? Also, we have received moneys back from, for example, the furlough scheme: moneys and grants that were made in error. So it is a complicated picture. I am certainly not suggesting from this Dispatch Box that the Government are writing anything off, or do not grasp the distinction between a credit loss and fraud. This needs to be tackled, but it needs to be tackled in a time and money-efficient way. Obviously the law of diminishing returns  begins to apply after a certain point, and we will again by led by HMRC and its excellent advice as we pursue the matter.

Julian Lewis: The Government are saying that fraudsters will still be relentlessly pursued. If, heaven forbid, the Minister ever had to implement such a scheme in the future, would he regard it as a satisfactory result to know that 99% of these huge sums of money went to the intended recipients?

John Glen: I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. He helpfully highlights that many of these grants and schemes were very effective in getting money to the right people in a timely way. I spoke earlier to an official from HMRC, who said, “We managed to get some of the money out in six days. If we had spent more time designing in more verification, we could have made it watertight. That would have taken several months and many businesses would have gone to the wall.” That was the dilemma we faced. I am not saying we got everything right, but it was certainly done in all good conscience to try to get the balance right.

Mick Whitley: The announcement that no action will be taken to recover the nearly £4 billion fraudulently claimed from the covid support schemes stands in stark contrast to the Government’s treatment of some of the poorest people in my constituency who had their benefits cut off, and who were even chased through the courts, for making the simplest of mistakes when claiming benefits.
Will the Minister concede there is a double standard when it comes to holding the rich and powerful to account, whether for breaching lockdown restrictions or even for downright fraud? Will he also commit to providing redress to my constituents who have suffered so enormously as a result of this Government’s heavy-handed approach to accidentally misclaimed benefits?

John Glen: I do not accept the premise of the hon. Gentleman’s question. The estimate of the amount of fraud is broadly in line with what we see in other Departments, including the Department for Work and Pensions. There is no complacency here. There is a desire to iterate our response by using insights into behaviour to examine all avenues to reclaim this fraud, and we will continue to take that approach fairly across all the schemes.

Toby Perkins: It is interesting to hear the Minister confirm what I have often believed—that it was pressure from my colleagues on the shadow Treasury Bench that forced the Government to extend their proposed action to support businesses. I am glad he has confirmed that, but, on the specifics of this case, does it not say everything about this Chancellor that he is willing to write off £4.3 billion but does not have the courage to come to this place to respond to the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden)?

John Glen: I have been in the Treasury for more than four years under three Chancellors. I have supported them all to the best of my ability, and I will continue to do so. What I can tell the hon. Gentleman is that the Chancellor has been absolutely committed from the  start to design the best possible scheme to provide the money to support businesses and individuals up and down this country. Since then, the £100 million investment in extra HMRC personnel has been designed to maximise the recovery of fraud. The work on duplicate application checks, the changes in director information and the HMRC turnover check—all these insights were designed to minimise the loss to the taxpayer. That governs the Chancellor’s approach, and it governs the approach of all Ministers and officials in the Treasury.

Stephen Flynn: What does it say about the integrity of this Tory Government that they are willing to write off billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money while, at the same time, cutting the income of millions of people on universal credit during a cost of living crisis?

John Glen: This Government made a range of interventions to support people in different forms and in different ways. We were clear from the very start that we would not be able to help everyone. One of the issues we had to reconcile was verification of people’s identity and status, and this measure to prevent fraud arguably stopped some people accessing the benefits of some of these schemes. I do not accept the premise of the hon. Gentleman’s question.

Matt Western: The Minister will be aware that in 2020-21, Companies House showed the greatest ever number of incorporations. Did the Government not sniff something going on? If they did, why did they not act? If they are honest, do we not face taxpayers everywhere having to pick up the £4.3 billion bill for their failing?

John Glen: No, I do not accept that, I am afraid. At every stage the Government took the best advice that we could on the flows of data that were available from HMRC and Companies House, which conditioned the design of the schemes. Subsequently, insights and input from Companies House, HMRC and the Insolvency Service have governed how we seek to tackle and recover moneys from fraud.

Tony Lloyd: The Minister shows a degree of nervous embarrassment but very little by way of contrition. Companies in my constituency face closure because they are struggling. What would that £4.3 billion have done for those that did not qualify for any assistance from this Government?

John Glen: I am of course very concerned about businesses that are struggling and have been in difficulty, but I am pleased that the economy has recovered far quicker than many anticipated it would this time two years ago, and I am pleased that unemployment is at about 4.1%, rather than the 12% that was anticipated at the start of this crisis. There is no complacency from this Government, and there is an absolute determination to support businesses in getting back on their feet and trading. That is why we put in place so many interventions, which were designed in different ways to maximise the support to businesses and individuals across this country.

Wendy Chamberlain: The Government say time and again that support during the pandemic for the people who fell through the gap  between the job retention scheme and the self-employed scheme would be too difficult to administer because of the risk of fraud. We now know that, simultaneously, companies that were defrauding taxpayers were being supported. We are left to conclude that the decision not to help those 3 million people was simply political. Those small businesses, sole traders and entrepreneurs should be the driving force of the UK’s economic recovery in the months and years ahead. What impact has this lack of support had on those sectors, and what will the Government do to support them going forward?

John Glen: The hon. Lady points to the fact that none of these schemes was perfect. She recognises implicitly that checks against data to verify people’s identity were necessary to ensure that they were suitable recipients of taxpayers’ funds. Unfortunately that meant that some were not able to secure the support that they sought. Where we can, we have moved forward and iterated these schemes, focusing and targeting them on the sectors of the economy that were most hit at different stages in this crisis, but I concede that unfortunately we were not able to help everyone, as we would have liked.

Andrew Gwynne: The Minister said that the Government were straining every sinew to get money out quickly, and nobody disagrees with that, but there must be retrospective due process to ensure that there was proper compliance. Defrauding the public purse can never be acceptable. One emergency loan for £4.7 million went to a firm founded just two days before it received the funds. How many other companies had only just been formed?

John Glen: Unfortunately, I am sure that there are examples of people who conducted fraud; that is self-evident. I urge the hon. Gentleman to give as much information as he can to HMRC, so that these matters can be chased up. There was always a balancing act between speed of delivery and risk of fraud, and Government and Ministers’ decisions were made in the light of the best advice. It was not a perfect situation. However, we were urged to get that money out—not just by Labour but by the CBI, the Federation of Small Businesses and numerous other organisations—and we responded. I think that was generally acknowledged, and it certainly was by the shadow Chancellor at the time.

John Martin McDonnell: This is outrageous. This is an attempt to shift the blame to everybody but the Government. Of course MPs across the House were pressing the Government for speed of action—for everyone, not just for a select few—but we were also raising issues of fraud. I wrote to the Chancellor within weeks of the scheme’s being introduced about the information coming in about fraud. I tabled parliamentary questions on 3 July. I simply asked what measures were in place. What response did I get?
“I cannot go into specific detail about measures either in place or in development. For the same reason, it is not possible to release the number of fraudulent applications or associated investigations.”
I asked the same questions about the number of companies going bust and so on but still receiving grants.
I ask the Minister: what other organisation loses billions, yet no one is held to account, no one resigns and there is not even a word of apology—not a single sentence of regret? That money could have been used effectively to lift people out of poverty and to support jobs, yet through the incompetence of this Government, it has gone missing.

John Glen: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. I do not accept the premise behind it, but I do accept that we moved £81.2 billion of support through various schemes out to businesses and individuals up and down the country, and that there was an element of fraud, which we will continue to bear down on aggressively.

Florence Eshalomi: The Minister may be aware that my Vauxhall constituency is home to world-renowned arts and cultural centres and small independent theatres, many of which are supported by young, up-and-coming independent actors, freelancers and artists who received no support whatsoever. Seeing the Government wipe away this £4.3 billion debt is another slap in the face for people who have struggled for the past 22 months without any support, even though they are taxpayers. I pay tribute to the many business improvement districts across Vauxhall—the South Bank BID, Vauxhall One, Brixton BID and This is Clapham—which support small and independent businesses up and down my constituency that struggled and often did not qualify for any grants because of the rateable values associated with inner-London constituencies. Does he understand that many people feel anger when they see the Government write off this £4.3 billion?

John Glen: As a former arts Minister who visited many of those organisations in the hon. Lady’s constituency in years past, I recognise the enormous contribution that creative industries make there and across the country. Of course, the grants we gave through the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, the recovery fund, and the support through local authorities got to many of those organisations. I stand here today not with a sense that nothing could have been done better, but recognising that there was a balancing act between speed of delivery of support to businesses, and complexity, with the delays that would inevitably have ensued. I am contrite about our not getting everything right, but I am also clear about the real dilemma that we faced at the time.

Jim Shannon: I think everyone in this House recognises that Government stepped in and helped; I know my constituents recognise that, and we want to put that on record. HMRC stated in November that its taskforce was expected to recover some £1 billion in fraudulent or incorrect claims over the past two years and referred to some 23,000 investigations that had been opened. Only 25% of the money will of course be returned, so can the Minister clarify how that came to be, and what lessons have been learned for any future financial claims?

John Glen: As ever, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I set out in my previous answers the dilemmas with respect to speed of delivery. However, HMRC has done a fantastic job in designing the schemes and standing them up quickly under enormous pressure.  We will continue to work closely with HMRC and take its advice as we make decisions on how to tackle enduring fraud risk. More broadly, lessons can be learned about the design of future schemes.

Nigel Evans: Thank you, Minister, for responding to the urgent question. We will have a brief pause to allow those who are leaving to leave.

English Football League Governance: Derby County FC

Pauline Latham: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on matters of English Football League governance surrounding the administration of Derby County football club.

Chris Philp: I am appearing at the Dispatch Box in place of the sports Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston)—who is taking a Bill through Committee. Like many Members across the House, I know how important football clubs are to local communities, and I appreciate how worrying it is to see them under jeopardy. I feel that particularly as a fan of Crystal Palace, a proud south London club that went through a similar experience about 11 years ago. It went through administration and was bought out by Steve Parish, avoided relegation, and is now in the premier league, so there is always hope, even in the darkest hours. Because the Government understand how important football clubs are to our local communities, we launched a fan-led review of football governance, and are working at pace to respond to the excellent report from my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch).
I turn to Derby County. The situation is worrying for fans, the local community and football alike. No one wants to see a founding member of the Football League in administration and facing threats to its survival. Of course, Derby County has won silverware in the past, and I pay tribute to Wayne Rooney for his sterling work as manager this season—I never thought I would hear myself saying those words in the House of Commons.
We should be clear that the governance surrounding the administration of Derby County football club is a matter for the English Football League, the administrator and the club. However, the Government take a close interest and are receiving regular updates. The sports Minister spoke to the English Football League last night to understand exactly what is going on, and to urge all parties involved to take a pragmatic approach to securing the future of the Rams. I call on the English Football League, the club and the administrators to play an active and urgent role, within their remits, in seeking to facilitate an urgent solution to the situation.
The EFL has asked the administrators for details of a funding plan that will enable the club to complete this season. The administrators have tabled some options that are available to them, and the EFL has extended the deadline for proof of funding, in line with its regulations and policy. I understand that some bidders are interested in purchasing the club, and I very much hope that those conversations reach a fruitful conclusion as quickly as possible. Yesterday, the EFL issued an extensive and transparent update on its handling of the matter, which I commend to the House.
Of course, this matter raises questions about the wider financial sustainability of football. The fan-led review made a number of proposals directly addressing how to prevent clubs ending up in such situations, and  the Government are considering them carefully. We have however endorsed in principle the review’s primary recommendation, which is that football requires a strong, independent regulator to secure the future of the national game. In the meantime, the Government, and my hon. Friend the sports Minister in particular, will continue to engage closely with the EFL and Members—particularly those who represent the fine county of Derbyshire—and call for urgent pragmatism from all parties involved, so that they find a solution quickly and save this fantastic club.

Pauline Latham: I thank the Minister for his words. I spoke to the sports Minister last night, and I place on record that many Derbyshire colleagues completely support what we are doing to try to save the club. Derby County football club cannot be allowed to be removed from the English Football League on 1 February. If this can happen to Derby, which was one of the founder clubs of the Football League in 1888, it can happen to any of the other 71 clubs.
These clubs are so much more than businesses. They represent the heart and soul of communities, nowhere more so than in Derby, and they are huge drivers of economic growth and part of the cultural fabric of our country. Can the Minister assure me that in his discussions with the EFL he has been reassured that it is acting in the best interests of Derby County’s fans?
I understand that there are ongoing legal proceedings between Derby and other clubs, but the reason the potential takeover cannot happen is that the EFL is refusing to rule on whether those claims could constitute football debts—a matter for EFL rules, not for the courts. Will the Minister confirm why the EFL is refusing to rule on the matter? If the EFL cannot or will not rule on it, Derby County believes that it could rely on new insolvency rules, approved by this Parliament, to exit administration. Will the Minister please confirm that he will investigate why the EFL’s insolvency guidelines are not up to date, which is causing such difficulties for Derby County?
Furthermore, although the EFL’s delay is effectively holding up the takeover, it appears to have set an arbitrary deadline of 1 February, at which point it can remove Derby from the league. Is the Minister convinced that the EFL is acting fast enough to resolve the football debts issue before the deadline, or will it extend the deadline accordingly?
Finally, I would like to mention the administrators of the club. Fans have no accountability mechanisms over those individuals, who themselves have no connection to the club. Will the Minister please assure me that he is in constant contact with the administrators to ensure that they are acting in the fans’ best interests and as quickly as possible?

Chris Philp: As always, my hon. Friend is an outstanding advocate for Derbyshire and for matters that concern her constituents and football fans across the county and the broader region. I agree entirely with her point. Football clubs are an integral part of the fabric of their local communities; I certainly feel that in south London with Crystal Palace, and I know that colleagues across the House and their constituents certainly feel the same about their football clubs.
The sports Minister has been in close contact with the English Football League. We want to see it working urgently, pragmatically and rapidly to resolve the outstanding issues standing in the way of a takeover by a new owner, who we hope can invest the money needed to turn the club around. The sports Minister is pressing the English Football League very hard on these points; I am sure that he will do so again and that the English Football League will be listening to our proceedings this afternoon, hear the message from this House and act accordingly.
On my hon. Friend’s final point, I am afraid that I do not know whether the sports Minister has spoken to the administrators yet, but since she has raised the point so forcefully and eloquently, I will certainly ask him to do so as soon as I leave the Chamber.

Alex Davies-Jones: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham) for bringing this urgent matter to the House today. Once again, one of our great historic football clubs—a founder member of the Football League—is in danger. That is not the fault of the players and staff, who have performed remarkably in the circumstances; it is not the fault of fans; once again, it is the fault of mismanagement by owners. It is an example of the problem that the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) identified in the fan-led review of football governance: owners gambling everything on aiming for Premier League status without proper safeguards in place, leaving the club in danger. It is further evidence that football governance is broken and that we urgently need the changes recommended in the fan-led review.
We appreciate that the specifics of the current situation at Derby County are complex and that there are a number of parties involved—the EFL, potential buyers, administrators and other clubs making claims to legal challenges. Labour urges all those parties to work together to sort this out. But even bearing that in mind, may I urge the Minister and the sports Minister to do everything in their power to secure the club’s future for the sake of fans, players, staff, the city and the wider community?
The question that many fans will be asking is “How did we get here again?” The review by the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford has already put forward a strong set of recommendations that would overhaul football governance for the better. Introducing a new statutory independent regulator requires new legislation, but a shadow regulator fulfilling the same function could be introduced straightaway. Such a regulator could have flagged up the issues that put Derby County in jeopardy long before we got where we are today.
The Government have said that they will respond fully to the review’s recommendations in the spring, but does the Minister accept that this latest crisis demonstrates that that is just too long to wait? Is the crisis not more compelling evidence that the Government need to act quickly to implement the recommendations of the fan-led review and ensure that football has a governance regime that safeguards our great clubs and our national game?

Chris Philp: I thank the shadow Minister for her question. Clearly, the Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire, is doing everything he can to urge the various participants, especially the English  Football League, but also the administrators and the other clubs involved, to find a resolution to this complicated situation.
I would add two points. First, I would not tar all football owners with the same brush. Those clubs I know about, particularly Palace, have been well managed, so it cannot be said that football owners as a whole conduct themselves badly. Secondly, the problems at Derby County are long-standing, and long predate the fan-led review. We are moving at pace to make sure that the fan-led review is implemented, and that work will happen as quickly as possible.

Tracey Crouch: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham) on securing the urgent question and pay tribute to her Derbyshire colleagues, some of whom are unable to be here today but who I know are as concerned as she is.
My inbox is full of Rams fans who are understandably concerned by the perilous situation the club is in. The football review panel met Mel Morris near the end of the process and after the interim recommendations were published, and I asked him specifically whether he thought that the club would be in a different situation if an independent regulator and real-time financial monitoring had been in place. His answer was, “Yes, without a doubt.” Given that clubs think that the recommendations in the review would lead to greater sustainability in football, will the Minister—I appreciate he is standing in for the sports Minister—give a bit more detail about the pace at which implementation of the report’s recommendations is being considered and will be responded to? Many would argue that they are urgently needed so that no other club and its loyal, committed, lifelong fans will suffer the threat of ceasing to exist.

Chris Philp: Let me start by paying tribute to my hon. Friend for the tremendous work that she has done in convening the fan-led review and producing such a comprehensive and detailed report. I can assure her that the Sports Minister is working on this as a matter of urgency. We have accepted the key principles of the fan-led review. It is a detailed review with a large number of detailed recommendations, and we want to make sure that we get the response right while doing so as quickly as possible. I can assure my hon. Friend that that work is happening very quickly, and I would be happy to ask the sports Minister to meet her to discuss the implementation timetable. I spoke to him earlier this afternoon and he is fully seized of the need to move fast.

Margaret Beckett: I can confirm everything that the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham) said about the importance of this issue in the city of Derby and across the whole area, as can be seen from the Members here today. Long ago, when this all began, I was one of those who took part in a meeting with the Football League in which it assured us of its earnest desire to see this matter resolved and Derby County continue. The Minister said in his opening remarks that no one wants to see the club go under: well, some of us are beginning to wonder. I assure him, and through him the Football League, that if, inadvertently—because the Football League is unable to remove the obstacles that at the moment it appears to be putting so firmly in Derby County’s way—that were to happen, none of those participating in it would be forgiven.

Chris Philp: The right hon. Lady makes her point with power and eloquence, and I echo her sentiments. As I said in my opening comments, I hope the English Football League, the other clubs involved in this saga and the administrators are listening to our proceedings this afternoon and to the message she just gave, which probably commands support across the House. I hope they listen and act accordingly.

Julian Knight: A little over a year ago, the sports Minister and I were in almost daily communication about the EFL’s financial crisis. Through that communication and the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee’s actions and public hearings, we dragged the Premier League kicking and screaming into a £250 million deal to bail out the EFL. In the light of that action, does my hon. Friend agree that it is beholden on the EFL, which has benefited from financial help in the past, to show decency and understanding to Derby County football club—a former league champion club—in this, its hour of need? What is more, we need to speed up the football review and get legislation on the statute book. We all know there is limited time to bring forward legislation, but this is clearly an urgent priority, so will my hon. Friend commit today to give us a timetable for when legislation will come forward?

Chris Philp: My hon. Friend the Chair of the Select Committee echoes the sentiments so powerfully expressed by the right hon. Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett) a few moments ago. There is a significant burden on the English Football League and on the other clubs involved to get this matter sorted out urgently, and I agree with my hon. Friend’s sentiments in that regard.
On the timing, a number of details clearly need to be worked through. The fan-led review’s recommendations were very detailed, and primary legislation will be required. As my hon. Friend will know, the Government need to work through a number of pressing legislative priorities. I cannot make a commitment on behalf of my colleague the sports Minister—it would be wrong to commit a fellow Minister in respect of his portfolio—but I will ask him to speak to my hon. Friend, as well as to my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), to discuss the timing.

Toby Perkins: I have to say that there will be real disappointment among Derby County fans that the sports Minister is not here to respond to this question. I understand that he is serving on a Bill Committee, but arrangements could have been made—[Hon. Members: “Here he is.”] Well, it would be good to hear from him, because with the greatest respect to the Minister responding, he has not been able to answer the fundamental question.
The Minister has spoken about the problems that Crystal Palace had previously, but one thing about this situation is different: the threat of legal action from Middlesbrough and Wycombe and the impact of commitments that may exist in the future on the possibility of a takeover happening now. Will the Minister tell us what the sports Minister is doing to ensure that Middlesbrough and Wycombe’s claims against Derby County’s previous owners do not prevent the club from being purchased? When clubs have debts in the future,  they go out of existence altogether, as we saw with Glasgow Rangers and Bury; if clubs have debts in the past, it can be resolved. That is the key issue we need to hear about today.

Chris Philp: If I may say so respectfully, the hon. Member’s comments about the sports Minister at the beginning of his question were rather unfair: he was in a Bill Committee, taking primary legislation through Parliament, and has now arrived on the Front Bench, having completed that important task. That was an extremely unfair remark.
On the other football clubs, legal proceedings are currently pending, but I think a pragmatic solution should be found. I know the sports Minister has been in touch with the English Football League about finding a pragmatic solution. There were similar issues with Crystal Palace 11 years ago—I think it was to do with Lloyds Bank—and a pragmatic solution was found; I expect the same pragmatism to be displayed in this situation.
Finally, the fan-led review touched on some of the issues in respect of debts. When that review is implemented, it will address the issues that the hon. Member raised.

Nigel Mills: It is a pity we cannot have a substitution of the Minister now that the sports Minister has turned up—that might be allowed on the football pitch, but it is not here.
I know the Minister is a keen football fan; does he, like me, remember how close Middlesbrough came to going out of business until Steve Gibson saved the club a few decades ago? Would it not be ironic if Steve Gibson’s claim, which many of us think is probably a stretch, was what now pushed Derby County over the edge? Will the Minister urge Middlesbrough and Wycombe, in the spirit of football solidary that fans are showing, not to press their claims and to let new owners be found? Does he agree that the Government may need to act because we cannot have, in our elite professional leagues, one club suing another because it does not like the outcome of the season? That is no way to have a sports competition with integrity. If we are going to have legal cases to decide things after the fact, we will not know what the final title decider would have been until the years go by.

Chris Philp: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. There are obviously legal proceedings ongoing, but I think it would serve everybody’s interests—the interests of football more generally, as well as those of Derby County in particular—if those involved show pragmatism and help a proud and long-standing club to survive. As I said a few moments ago, when Crystal Palace was in a similar situation, the bank concerned did show pragmatism, and I call on all those involved, including other clubs, to show the same kind of pragmatism.

Dan Jarvis: Derby County is the latest club to find itself in difficulty, but without major and urgent reform it will not be the last. The system is broken when the club finishing at the bottom of the premier league receives 10 times more than the club at the top of the championship, despite their being separated by just one place in the football pyramid.  Can I ask the Minister what work is being done to ensure that English Football League clubs are put on a financially sound footing, including agreement on an equitable distribution of the TV money?

Chris Philp: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. One of the issues addressed by the fan-led review is precisely the question that he refers to, and I know that as the Sports Minister works through the response to the fan-led review, answers to that reasonable and important question will be forthcoming.

Andrew Bridgen: Although I am a Leicestershire MP, many of my constituents who have written to me are loyal supporters of Derby County and are hugely concerned about the future of the club. Derby County is in administration, and it accrued or built up £30 million of tax liabilities under the previous owner. If the club goes into liquidation, those moneys due to the Treasury will be at risk. Given this really quite huge financial vested interest of the Government in the survival of Derby County, what are they doing to ensure that the obstacles to a successful takeover are removed, to secure the future of this iconic football club and also secure the moneys due to the Treasury?

Chris Philp: The Treasury, or Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs I should say, as an unsecured creditor, is like any other unsecured creditor, and the administrator will treat it fairly and even-handedly, as it would treat any creditor in this situation. I do not think the existence of that debt, among other debts, is the obstacle to completion of the transaction; other issues to do with outstanding legal proceedings and matters that the EFL is responsible for are more immediate obstacles. That is why I repeat my call for the EFL and those other clubs, such as Middlesbrough, pragmatically to get this situation resolved as quickly as possible.

Clive Betts: I think we can all, as football fans, feel for the fans of Derby County. We can imagine what it would be like if our club were in such a position, with all that history and our fathers and grandfathers—and grandmothers—having supported a club that is about to disappear. We have to feel for them. It is unthinkable that Derby should go out of existence, but it was unthinkable that Bury should go out of existence, and look what happened.
This is really just another example of the complete mess that is football finance. Why are the rules about administration in place? It is because a few years ago Leicester City deliberately went into administration to get rid of its debts to enable it to be promoted to the premiership at the expense of Sheffield United. It is a complete mess. There are two issues that arise: get the Crouch fan-led review in place as quickly as possible to sort out football finances; and in the meantime get the EFL—I have some sympathy for it because of the difficulties it faces—to give a proportionate and proper response to Derby to make sure that club survives.

Chris Philp: We all agree, without question, that the steps to ensure Derby County’s survival must be taken as quickly as possible. On the wider points made about football finance and the situation the hon. Member mentioned a few years ago, I would just point again to  the fan-led review, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford. It is precisely to deal with the issues that he quite rightly raises that the review was initiated and why my hon. Friend the Sports Minister will be acting on it.

Mark Fletcher: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham) for securing this urgent question. Like a number of local MPs, I met the EFL yesterday—as a Derbyshire MP, many constituents have written to me—and I have to say that, following that meeting, I could not help but share some of the suspicions outlined by the right hon. Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett), because it did not feel to me that the EFL was really putting fans at the heart of this situation and putting our communities front and foremost. I know the Minister is unable to respond directly, but does the Department have faith in the EFL as a fair arbiter which has fans in mind?

Chris Philp: It is important that the EFL and the other participants in this saga act quickly to ensure a successful resolution. As always, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, so let us hope, and indeed expect, that those results follow very soon.

Andy McDonald: As a lifelong Boro fan, can I say to the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham) that no Middlesbrough football club fan wants to see Derby County—a great football club—go into administration and exit the league. There are great links between our clubs, not the least of which was personified by the great Brian Clough. I know that the Minister is doing his best, but the details are complicated. There is the potential claim, which is founded in the mismanagement of Derby by its previous owners, who offended against the rules and were punished as a result. That is why we are in this position today. I urge the Minister to familiarise himself with the statement from Middlesbrough football club, which has made it clear that it does not want to see Derby fall into liquidation and that it
“is happy to be realistic in its expectations in order for Derby County to exit administration.”
I encourage the Minister to encourage the EFL to encourage the administrator to engage with Middlesbrough, which is very realistic about how it can assist in this process, but at the moment is being met with silence.

Chris Philp: The hon. Gentleman raises a very important and reasonable point. My hon. Friend the Sports Minister has just confirmed to me that in his conversations last night with the English Football League he called on it to facilitate exactly the kind of conversations that the hon. Gentleman just mentioned. It is our hope that those conversations reach a resolution very quickly. The statement that the hon. Gentleman just read out from Middlesbrough football club is encouraging, but obviously actions will speak louder than words.

Brendan Clarke-Smith: As a proud Nottinghamian, I did not think I would see the day when I would stand in this Chamber defending Derby County football club. Much has been made of the governance, which is clearly an issue, but I think most football fans up and down the country look at the financial fair play system, the sanctions and the points  deductions and see it generally as a mess. Does the Minister agree that the rules from the EFL need to be clearer, that punishments need to be delivered in a consistent and timely manner and that the EFL must learn the lessons to avoid these things happening in the future?

Chris Philp: Once again, my hon. Friend makes some important points, and I am sure fans of Derby County will be grateful to him for his magnanimity in the way he framed his remarks. I believe that the issues he raises will be picked up by the fan-led review to make sure that these risks do not arise again.

Alex Sobel: As a Leeds United supporter, I know all about having a renegade owner racking up hundreds of millions of pounds in transfer fees to gamble on sporting success. One of the underlying issues with Derby County and other clubs that face difficulty is hugely inflated transfer fees. Has the Sports Minister considered looking at the role of agents, who are unlicensed and unregulated, and who have no cap on the level of the transfer fees that they can receive, to help calm this situation and stop the financial escalator we are seeing in transfer fees?

Chris Philp: The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue. A number of people have concerns about the role that agents play—not least football clubs, managers and indeed sometimes players themselves. It is a slightly, and I choose my words diplomatically, opaque—I was going to say murky—business. As the Sports Minister responds to the fan-led review, this will be an issue that he addresses.

Damian Collins: It is the failure of football governance that has created the problem at Derby. In this crisis, once again, the fans see that no one is interested in their concerns, the long-term future of the club or the impact on the people of Derby. If the EFL had enforced its financial rules effectively, this would not have happened, yet it is the EFL’s rules that will trigger Derby’s expulsion from the league by insisting that all football debts and liabilities are met. The regulator that my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) proposes in her report will stop this happening, but not before 1 February. Is the Minister prepared to consider what other direct interventions DCMS might make to keep Derby County in business?

Chris Philp: If the current system had been functioning perfectly or properly, there would have been no need for the fan-led review. There are certainly shortcomings, as my hon. Friend points out, which the fan-led review is designed to address. On the way in which the EFL’s rules may have precipitated or triggered the current situation, I repeat my call and, I think, the call of all hon. Members on both sides of the House for pragmatism from those involved, including the EFL, to get this matter resolved as quickly as possible to save a great club.

Clive Efford: We all accept the special role that football clubs have in their local communities, but they are treated like any other business, which is at the heart of the problem. With the EFL’s rules and with clubs as they are currently constituted under company  law, it is very difficult to intervene in this process. If the football regulator had been in place, with the rules and regulations that have been asked for, this problem would not have arisen. I have heard the Minister say plenty of times that the Government are determined to bring in the regulator as quickly as possible, but we not only need DCMS to say that; we need primary legislation that involves other Departments. Can he give us an assurance that those other Departments are applying the same urgency as DCMS?

Chris Philp: The hon. Gentleman is right that it requires primary legislation; and the Sports Minister, who is sitting next to me on the Front Bench, is working through those plans. As I said a few moments ago, the proposals are quite complicated in some areas and we need to make sure we get this right. Obviously it would be terrible if we acted too quickly, did not get the details right and ended up not fixing the problem. The Government’s intention is to legislate as quickly as we can, but we want to make sure we get this right to avoid the situation reoccurring.

Justin Tomlinson: Although football finance expert Kieran Maguire warned the EFL in 2018, it was 19 months before the EFL issued financial fair play charges. This allowed the situation to escalate out of control for far too long. For the sake of Derby fans, we need the Minister to take urgent action to get the EFL, Mel Morris, potential owners, Middlesbrough and Wycombe together to thrash out a deal. He should put them in a room and throw away the key until something has been sorted. It is in no one’s interest to see the future of such a proud club under immediate threat of folding.

Chris Philp: I share my hon. Friend’s call for urgency. The Sports Minister, as I said, spoke to the EFL last night, and he will continue urgently and forcefully pressing the participants in this saga to get a resolution. I repeat my call for all those involved—the EFL, clubs such as Middlesbrough, the administrators—to demonstrate flexibility and pragmatism in getting this sorted out. My hon. Friend the Sports Minister will be driving that forward.

Chi Onwurah: As a Newcastle United fan, I know something of sorrow and frustration. I have huge sympathy for Derby County. This Government have repeatedly failed to act on issues of financial sustainability and effective governance in our national game, and they are now dragging their feet on their response to the fan-led review of football. Does the Minister really think that the pace of the Government’s response equals the importance of football in the lives of my constituents? Will he commit to putting fans at the top of the football pyramid?

Chris Philp: I do not accept the allegation that the Government have been dragging their feet. It was the Government who commissioned the fan-led review in the first place, and we have accepted its recommendations in principle. Detailed work is now taking place to get it implemented. As I said in response to a previous question, we need to make sure the details are right. Although we  are acting with urgency, we do not want to act so fast that we make a mistake in the legislation. On putting fans at the centre, the clue is in the name: it is a fan-led review.

James Daly: My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham) said in her excellent contribution that if this could happen to Derby, it could happen to anybody. Well, it did: it happened to Bury football club. When it happened to Bury football club, the fans paid the price. It was the fault of the owners, not the fault of the fans. When that process happened—Ministers on the Front Bench know I was intimately involved in it—the English Football League did not care. It did not care about any of the thousands of fans of Bury football club who were impacted by its decision to expel the club from the league. We are not talking about the local branch of Tesco. Football clubs are engines for social and economic good. They are the history and heartbeat of communities. I do not have the words to describe the impact on thousands of people in my constituency of Bury football club disappearing.
It is time for the English Football League to show that it cares, and not do what it did with Bury. It destroyed a club and nearly destroyed a town. I am not underscoring that; that is how much of an impact it had. I urge the Minister to do whatever is necessary to protect the fans of Derby. I have seen on a daily basis in my constituency what such a situation does to the fans of a football club who care about and love their club, and care about and love their town. That is bigger than all the rules in the world. The situation has got to be sorted out. Please do everything possible to protect Derby fans and please do not make the mistakes that happened with Bury.

Chris Philp: I think there is agreement across the House that what happened to Bury football club was a catastrophe for the local community. We must make sure the same does not happen to Derby County. All of us, on both sides of the House, will understand how devastating it is when a local football club disappears, as Bury did. Let us hope and take action to ensure that that never happens again. I am very sorry to hear my hon. Friend’s assessment of the EFL’s conduct in the Bury football club situation. I can only repeat my plea, or demand, to the EFL to acts rapidly and pragmatically. Once again, to make sure these things do not happen again, the independent fan-led review and the Government response to it is vital. Just to be clear and to clarify, the Government accept the principle of an independent regulator and are studying very carefully the other recommendations. We will respond as soon as we can.

Tony Lloyd: I wholeheartedly endorse the remarks of the hon. Member for Bury North (James Daly). The Minister makes the point that there are good owners of football clubs and there are. Rochdale, my town’s club, certainly has those. There are bad owners as well and the EFL has failed consistently to operate its duty on the fit and proper person test. The message the sports Minister has to give to the EFL is that there is no confidence in its ability and its governance of football. That message has to go out, because in the meantime, while we wait for the fan-led review to be given legal force, we have to make sure there is real pressure on the EFL so we do not lose another great club.

Chris Philp: The hon. Member makes a very powerful and eloquent point. As I said in response to the points made by the right hon. Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett), I am sure the EFL is listening to our proceedings and I am certain it will act accordingly.

Alison Thewliss: Although it is true that I am a proud Motherwell fan, my in-laws, Ron and Alison Wright, constituents of the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham), are proud Derby County fans. They are very proud of their club’s history and place in the town. As Derby County try to play out of their 21-point penalty, does the Minister agree there is a bit of a catch-22 situation for a team to try to play for its survival while it cannot keep players in the face of such financial and legal uncertainty?

Chris Philp: The hon. Lady is right. It is a difficult situation to suffer a 21-point penalty. Back in 2010, my team, Crystal Palace, had a 10-point penalty and avoided relegation on the final day of the season. I hope—demand, really—that Derby County continue and survive. I hope they continue fighting on. I know they will show the spirit required to get every single point they can as they fight not for survival as a club, but for survival in the Championship. I wish them every bit of good luck in doing that.

Nigel Evans: I thank the Minister for coming off the subs bench to take the urgent question. I do not know who, when asked whether football was a matter of life and death, said it was more important than that—[Hon. Members: “Bill Shankly.”] Shankly, there we are. I think today’s urgent question proved that admirably.

Toby Perkins: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the Minister for standing in bravely, but the petition specifically went to the sports Minister. It will be matter of huge regret that he was not able to give his perspective in response to the urgent question.
We have had statements at different times, but in the future on such matters, which are of such importance to people, can we ask the Government to try to find a way   to work with the Opposition, either to delay the Bill Committee or to delay the statement, so that the Minister can be here to respond? For the sake of my constituents, who are incredibly worried about the future of Derby County FC, I feel we would have had a different response if the sports Minister had had an opportunity to respond. I do not mean to be mean to anyone, but in the future can the Government and the Speaker work together to try to ensure the relevant Minister can be here to respond on matters of such importance?

Nigel Evans: Given the nature of an urgent question, does the Minister want to come in or shall I take this?

Nigel Huddleston: The hon. Member may be confusing two points. I am aware that there is a petition being processed at this moment in time, but today’s response was to an urgent question. I am sorry that I was unable to be at the Dispatch Box because I had other business scheduled in the House. The Charities Bill had been scheduled for a long time and, by just a few minutes, time did not allow me to be here.
I thank the Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), for standing in for me. As I hope I have proven over the past two years in this role, I am always open to discussion with any colleagues, on any side of the House. I have had many conversations with colleagues relating to Derby County FC, and I would happily speak to the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) . There is nothing party political about the issue and we all need to work together.

Nigel Evans: I do not think I need add anything further to that response.
We should now have the presentation of a Bill, but I do not see the Member present, so we will move on to the ten-minute rule Bill.

Digital Devices (Access for Next of Kin)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Ian Paisley Jnr: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to grant a right of access to the digital devices of a dead or incapacitated person to their next of kin; and for connected purposes.
At the outset, I thank the Government for giving me one of their valued spaces to introduce this private Member’s Bill. They did not do that lightly. Indeed, there is an indication—I will put it no more strongly than that—of a fair wind from the Government and that the Bill could make its way to the statue book, given that they are considering whether the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill may be a mechanism to consider the matter.
I thank hon. Members from across the House for the considerable support I have received, as can be seen from the names of the sponsors of the Bill, and the welcome endorsement I have received from the other place, where they are considering similar matters. I particularly welcome the support from Baroness Beeban Kidron, who took time to draw my attention to and discuss with me the contents of the report of the Joint Committee on the Draft Online Safety Bill, and the importance of how this measure will help reset the relationship between the service provider and end user. I note a debate in the other place in the Baroness’s name on Thursday, and hope that that too will give added momentum to this important matter, which both the House of Commons and the House of Lords are considering.
My Bill will grant the next of kin the right to access the smart phone and other digital devices of a person on their death or incapacity. There is no legislative definition of a “digital asset” in the United Kingdom. There is no legislation governing a personal representative or fiduciary’s access to digital assets. My Bill would create a law where the default position would be that the next of kin of a deceased or incapacitated person would automatically gain access to the contents of the digital platforms held in the deceased person’s name on their digital devices.
My Bill would clarify the position in the UK, and protect the assets and legacy of an individual’s digital estate. It would grant immediate access to the next of kin to a deceased or incapacitated person’s digital assets without their having to take costly or uncertain legal action against digital platforms. The Bill will codify the contents of digital assets as a person’s possession.
Every day, without realising it, we are creating an even larger digital footprint as we go through our lives, both in a personal way and in our financial lives online. What happens to that information when someone unexpectedly or tragically dies? Leaving a treasured possession such as a photo album or a collection of memorabilia and precious memories used to be quite easy, but in the ever-increasing digital world and digital age, that now often intangible property may be buried beneath layers of cyber-security. It can be hard to locate and even harder to administer as the legal landscape has failed, on many occasions, to keep pace with the development of technology and tech companies have become increasingly powerful.
Today an estimated £25 billion of our assets in the UK are held online in password-protected cloud storage solutions such as iTunes and social media accounts. For  many people, digital assets fall into the important category of predominantly sentimental value—for example, memories, photos and videos stored on a laptop, notebook, smartphone or on social media accounts accessed via those devices. But this is not just about sentimental records. Music is purchased online, physical record, CD and book collections are replaced, and in some instances significant revenues are generated online. In the gaming world, a player’s virtual character can be traded for considerable revenue. YouTube channels, cryptocurrency and frequent flyer points can each be translated into monetary value—but only if next of kin has access. Most people are under the impression that they own their online content. They do not. Many forget to make provision for access to their content material in their will, or to share their passwords and access codes with their loved ones. Of course, many do not have a will, and young people, especially, fall into that category. Much precious material, sentimental and otherwise, can therefore be lost forever.
The United States of America has attempted to legislate in the area, and the Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act has passed in some states, but in the UK there is no legislation on rights of access to a person’s digital device or account. Even a grant of probate may not be sufficient to enable the executors to obtain legal title to a deceased person’s digital content. In fact, in the UK we are at the mercy of the mechanisms laid down by the giant tech companies in trying to gain some limited access: Facebook, Google, Apple, iTunes, Instagram, Microsoft, YouTube and PayPal, to name a few. Each has different and limited practices and policies for access on death or incapacity to a person’s digital content or physical device. We need to unlock that labyrinth for the public.
The Bill will go some way towards unlocking and finding a way through that labyrinth. It will allow next of kin the automatic right to access to a person’s digital device and place a responsibility on the tech companies to unlock devices for those next of kin who do not have the access codes for devices left by the deceased. It will avoid unnecessary legal action by the next of kin. It will remove forever the unnecessary wall and unlock, for many, happy memories and access to what they thought was lost archive material about their loved one. Precious photos, videos, memories, messages, diaries and other material will be accessible to next of kin at the most difficult time in many families’ lives. There is a need for the Government to bring our laws into the digital new century and ensure that next of kin are not blocked by tech companies from having access to their loved one’s material.
During my discussions with Baroness Kidron, she related to me the tragic story of 14-year-old Molly Russell. It chimed with me given other constituency cases that I have come across and dealt with. The Bill will ensure that digital data is available to investigators, and, above all, that other bereaved parents do not have to experience what families have gone through in accessing their children’s social media and other accounts.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Ian Paisley, Jeremy Wright, Damian Collins, Sir Robert Goodwill, Kevin Brennan, John Spellar, Matt Western, Nick Smith, Jim Shannon, Carla Lockhart and Sammy Wilson present the Bill.
Ian Paisley accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 4 February, and to be printed (Bill 229).

Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [Lords]

[Relevant documents: Oral evidence taken before the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee on 19 July and 7 September 2021, on the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill, HC 277; Written evidence to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee on the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill, reported to the House on 13 July, 19 July and 7 September 2021 and 17 January 2022, HC 277.]
Second Reading

George Eustice: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The United Kingdom was the first country in the world to pass legislation to protect animals with the Cruel Treatment of Cattle Act 1822. In 1876, we were the first country to pass legislation regulating experiments on animals. In 1875, we were the first country to introduce measures to improve conditions in slaughterhouses. This House also passed the landmark Protection of Animals Act 1911, an Act emulated by many other countries around the world.
More recently, there have been further improvements. One of the first actions taken by Margaret Thatcher’s Government was the introduction of the Farm Animal Welfare Council, announced to this House in July 1979 by Peter Walker. That Government then updated the law on animal experiments with the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, which remains an international gold standard. The Labour party has also made its contribution: our Parliament updated the 1911 Act with the Animal Welfare Act 2006, which introduced a robust framework and powers for protecting all kept animals in England and Wales.
Every piece of animal welfare legislation passed by this House since 1822 has implicitly recognised the sentience of animals. During the European Union era, the UK was a signatory to article 13 of the Lisbon treaty, which offered a form of legal recognition of the sentience of animals. Although that did not really mean very much, we believe we can now do better through this Bill.

Mike Amesbury: I note that the Secretary of State did not mention the ban on hunting with dogs—a law that needs to be strengthened—which constituents up and down the country are still concerned about. Why should this not be the Government to deal with that once and for all?

George Eustice: We have had many pieces of legislation; I sought in the time I had to list some of the key ones, including the 2006 Act.
How we treat animals, and the legislation we have to govern animal welfare, is a hallmark of a civilised society. We should be constantly looking to improve and refine our legislation in this area. That is why the Government have committed to introducing this new law on animal sentience.
I take this opportunity to thank my noble friend Lord Benyon of Englefield for his work bringing the Bill through the other place. The current version underwent close scrutiny in the other place, as Members would expect. This is a succinct Bill that offers clarity and  avoids creating a wide avenue for the judicial review of Government decisions, while ensuring that animal welfare is properly considered as Governments formulate policy.

Caroline Lucas: As the MP who I think made the first attempt to put sentience recognition into UK law with my amendment to the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, I warmly welcome this Bill. I congratulate the A Better Deal for Animals coalition for the work it has put into it. The Secretary of State mentions the scrutiny in the other place. Does he have sympathy with the concern raised there about how the Bill’s current wording would mean that the Animal Sentience Committee can look only at the adverse effects on the welfare of animals as sentient beings? Would he consider looking at the positive opportunities in considering those sentience issues, too?

George Eustice: I think this matter was dealt with extensively by my noble Friend, Lord Benyon. The key thing is that an adverse effect can mean a failure to make a change or consider a change that would have a positive impact on the welfare of animals, so I do not share any concerns about that expression.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) for his Committee’s work in scrutinising our proposals.
The Bill proposes four things. First, it establishes an Animal Sentience Committee, whose members the Secretary of State will appoint on the basis of expertise and experience. Secondly, it tasks that committee with scrutinising Ministers’ policy formation and the implementation of decisions. In each instance, it will publish a report containing its views on whether Ministers have had all due regard to the welfare needs of animals as sentient beings.
Thirdly, Ministers will be held to account through a duty to respond to the committee’s reports by means of a written statement to Parliament, and Parliament must receive such responses within three months. Finally, the wording of the Bill offers recognition that non-human vertebrates—that is, animals with a spine—and additionally decapod crustaceans, such as lobsters, and cephalopod molluscs, such as octopuses, are sentient. That means they are capable of experiencing pain or suffering. The Bill contains a delegated power for Ministers to add by regulation other species to the definition of animals. That is to be used if there is good scientific evidence that those particular species are sentient.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Can my right hon. Friend confirm whether the Bill as drafted contains birds?

George Eustice: The Bill does include birds, since they are vertebrates, and it includes fish, since they are vertebrates. I point out that those particular animals have been recognised in our law as sentient since at least 1911.
I want to be clear about what the Bill does and does not do. While its aim is to improve the policy and decision-making processes of Government, the committee’s reports will not bind Ministers to any particular course of action. Ministers will remain free to determine the right balance between animal welfare and other important considerations.
Devolved matters are also excluded from the Bill’s provisions. The Scottish Government have their own counterpart to the Animal Sentience Committee already, while Wales and Northern Ireland have the powers to establish equivalent bodies, should they wish to do so.
It is also important to understand that the Bill tasks the Animal Sentience Committee with scrutinising the process by which Ministers arrive at policy decisions. It is not there to tell Ministers what decisions they should make or to critique those decisions. Instead, it is there to provide technical assessments of how well a given Department obtained and assessed relevant evidence on the animal welfare effects of the policy in question.

Jonathan Djanogly: On that point, can my right hon. Friend say whether he has assessed the possibility of judicial review arising as a result of that assessment process?

George Eustice: As I said, we do not believe that the Bill creates a cause of action for judicial review, for the simple reason that the obligation on a Minister is to respond to the report within three months, and that response can deal with any recommendation or observation put forward by the committee.

David Evennett: My right hon. Friend is making a strong case for the Bill. Does he agree that Britain continues to lead the world in animal welfare and that the Bill enhances our role?

George Eustice: Yes. As I set out at the beginning of the debate, the United Kingdom has always been a world leader in animal welfare. We were the first country in the world to introduce animal welfare legislation; we recognised the sentience of animals as long ago as 1822. We have been in the vanguard of new legislation in the area over time, and the Bill demonstrates our continued leadership.
Our approach will promote fair and consistent consideration of animal welfare throughout Government policy decisions, but without impinging on the freedom of Ministers to make those policy decisions, for which they are democratically accountable for Parliament.
For all those reasons, I commend this short Bill to the House.

Jim McMahon: I believe that across the country and across this House we care deeply about the welfare of animals. In that context, I am happy to reassure the Secretary of State that we support the Bill and will not divide the House on its Second Reading.
Successive Parliaments have sought to ensure that the law protects animals from cruelty inflicted by humans. The Opposition are proud that it was the Labour Government who brought in the Animal Welfare Act 2006, protecting the treatment of domestic animals and making owners and keepers responsible for ensuring that the welfare needs of their animals are fully met. The Opposition do not distinguish; we believe that all animals deserve protection, whether they are on a farm, at home as a pet, at large in the wild or in the sea.
The Government’s chaotic handling of our leaving the EU has left many gaps in protection and in law. The Bill will address one of those gaps by putting back into domestic legislation the recognition that animals are sentient beings. That issue has been in limbo since we left the EU, and I am pleased that it has now been reconciled. Formal legal recognition of animal sentience sends a clear message that as a country we are committed to protecting the welfare of animals—provided, of course, that the Government make sure that they deliver on what the Bill purports to promise.
What is difficult to reconcile, however, is that while animal welfare standards are constantly being raised here in the UK, the same is not true across the world. I am very proud that British farmers are leading the way, but it is a fact that many are facing a cliff edge, and with changes to EU subsidy favouring landowners keen to diversify away from farming to biodiversity schemes, it has come at the worst possible time. We are seeing food left rotting in the fields and some 20,000 pigs culled, all because of entirely foreseeable labour shortages.
To make matters worse, although the Government talk a good game on animal welfare, trade deals have been signed that not only undermine British farmers and producers, but allow the UK and its Government essentially to outsource animal cruelty in the supply chain to other countries. Take the UK-Australia trade deal: while we maintain high standards here in the UK and higher costs as a result, Australia allows intensive farming, which means that cattle may spend their entire life locked away without seeing a blade of grass, not to mention being trucked for 48 hours without rest, food or water, often in very hot conditions that would be illegal in the UK.
The Government could have used the Bill as an opportunity to address animal welfare concerns relating to those trade deals. As the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals acknowledges, the free trade agreement with Australia does not give any guarantee about equivalence of standards for imported products. We share the RSPCA’s concern that that could open the door to imported products such as hormone-fed beef and chlorine-washed chicken, produced to lower standards that would be illegal in the UK. Will the Secretary of State commit to amending the Bill to prevent that, or at least to bringing forward measures that will address those widely held concerns about how our domestic legislation interacts with trade deals that have so far been negotiated and with those negotiated in future?
On British soil, action is being taken by the National Trust and the Welsh Government, but the UK Government seem intent on turning a blind eye to the abuse of the Hunting Act 2004. Lessons are literally being given on how to get around the law of the land, and it is leading to live chases of foxes in this country.

Martin Docherty: Maybe I should have asked the Minister this question, but does the hon. Member think that when the Government are creating the committee to advise Ministers, it would be advisable to consider an open and transparent process of appointment in which appointees, no matter who they are, must declare their work and their participation in events such as foxhunting?

Jim McMahon: I think that, with every public appointment made, we need transparency and we need to ensure that those around the table are there for the  right reasons, and not to look after their own interests. Where there is a genuine conflict of interest—where any normal member of the public would look at it and question whether the motives of that person were in the interests of the country at large—of course that would not be right. It is a fact, particularly during the Boxing day hunt, although it was a day delayed, that the Government were completely absent. The country was lining up to criticise the clear abuse that has been taking place for a period, where loopholes are being exploited and the Government do not take action. On one hand we say that we are an animal-loving nation and that this Government want to protect animals, but on the other we see what is happening in plain sight, but do not see anything like the action that is required.
We are pleased that the Bill has reached this House, after well over six months in the other place, where it benefited from some notable improvements. We should be grateful to their lordships for their work. I give a special mention to my colleague and the former shadow Environment Secretary, Baroness Hayman, for the work that she has done and led in that place. As a result, the Government rightly concede that octopi, lobsters and the like should receive protection upfront in the Bill, rather than waiting to be considered by the Animal Sentience Committee when eventually it meets.
Further improvements are needed, which we and campaigners will continue to argue for in Committee. We share concerns expressed about clause 2 limiting consideration to ways in which the policy might have an adverse effect on the welfare of sentient beings. We understand the legal advice is that that itself does not prevent the committee from recommending positive steps to enhance animal welfare, and that should be made clear in the terms of reference, but surely it would make far more sense to be upfront and have that in the Bill.
We agree with the argument that the Bill should require Ministers proactively to set up a cross-Government animal sentience strategy, and regularly to report to Parliament on how Government policy is working in that regard. The duty simply to respond to a report could allow Ministers simply to dismiss a committee’s recommendation in that regard. That would fall far short not just of the Bill’s aims of enshrining animal welfare, but of the nation’s aspiration that we translate our narrative of being an animal-loving nation into the law that governs the land in which we live.
Animals are capable of bringing us huge joy, and it is right to ensure that they avoid avoidable suffering. We strongly support the need for the Bill, but the Government must recognise that if they say one thing but do another, the public will be rightly critical of the claims being made in support of the Bill. I urge the Secretary of State: where we see that the Government are saying one thing about the Bill but doing another on trade agreements or on foxhunting, we must show the world what leadership is and take action on both those fronts.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to catch your eye in this important but short debate, on a short and, in my view, unnecessary Bill. Of course we can all accept that animals can suffer and therefore we are obliged to ensure that we maintain our high standards  of welfare. That animals can experience pain and suffering has been implicit in British animal law, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State so rightly laid out, since 1835 when Parliament passed the landmark Cruelty to Animals Act. However, the lack of definition in this Bill or use of science to decide whether an animal is sentient is concerning; it even lacks a definition of what sentience means. It is concerning that we should be passing a Bill with such a lack of detail.
There is a huge rural community in this country that is passionate about wildlife and eager to protect the environment and their activities. The Angling Trust and the British Association for Shooting and Conservation—I declare an interest; it is the secretariat for the all-party group on animal welfare and environment which I chair—represent more than 3 million fishing and shooting enthusiasts in the UK. The Bill could deliver another weapon into the hands of litigious animal rights groups that could damage both Government and those who live and work with animals.
Shooting, conservation and angling are highly important for the UK economy. Shooting contributes about £2 billion to GDP and supports the equivalent of 74,000 full-time jobs. Angling is estimated to be worth £4 billion to the UK economy and responsible for upwards of 40,000 jobs.
We need to make sure that the Animal Sentience Committee set up by the Bill does not have any unforeseen or perverse consequences, and that the Bill is not introduced simply as a public relations exercise to meet the demands of activist groups and the tabloids. A sentience committee does not require legislation. It could have been established by the Secretary of State at any time. He has already told us that the members will be Secretary of State appointments, but that covers a multitude of types of people who might be appointed. Perhaps the Minister could give us a little more idea of the type of people who will be appointed to the committee.
According to clause 2(1), the scope of the Bill encompasses:
“When any government policy is being or has been formulated or implemented”.
In other words, it gives huge breadth of remit to the committee. So what will be the committee’s resources in terms of funds and secretariat? Would it not be more sensible to limit its remit to the areas currently covered by the European law on sentience, on which my party’s manifesto said we would legislate?
Will the new committee by statute confuse who advises Ministers on animal welfare when the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs already has an Animal Welfare Committee with a wide remit covering all animals, but not by statute? Will the new sentience committee, which is implemented by statute, be superior to the Animal Welfare Committee, which was established decades ago and works perfectly well? Or will it be a sub-committee of the Animal Welfare Committee? If so, will the Animal Welfare Committee be required to approve its reports before publication? What will be the difference between the remit of the two committees?
There is no requirement in the Bill for the committee to consider the public interest or the legislative or administrative provisions and customs of the UK relating in particular to religious rites, cultural traditions and regional heritage. In a meat-eating society where vertebrate animals are farmed and hunted for food, and used in scientific and medical research under strict legal limits,  the fact that the committee is not required to consider the public interest could lead to a conflict between activist groups and the Government.
Will the Minister therefore balance the requirement to have “all due regard” to animal welfare with a requirement to have regard to the public interest? Can the Minister give an assurance that the medical, scientific, farming, fishing and shooting interests will be represented? This is crucial, because otherwise it is going to breed a great deal of resentment in the rural communities.
There are other ways of recognising sentience in legislation. We could have followed New Zealand’s example and amended the Animal Welfare Act 2006 merely to include sentience. That is all that needed to happen.
Policy and legislation should always be science and evidence-based. It is extraordinary that there is no definition of sentience in the Bill. Even though 80% of the respondents to the Government consultation supported the inclusion of a definition, it still is not there. Instead, clause 5(2) says that the Secretary of State
“may by regulations … bring invertebrates of any description within the meaning of “animal” for the purposes of this Act”.
But there is no requirement to show scientific proof that non-vertebrates are sentient. Philosophers and scientists have been arguing for centuries about which non-vertebrate animals are sentient and what that actually means, and here we have a Bill that does not clarify that debate.
The Bill originated in demands for sentience to be explicitly written into law after Brexit, but it does not contain the safeguards within the EU law on sentience. EU law on sentience is limited and balanced. It applies to agriculture, fisheries, transport, the internal market, research and technological and space policies. Member states—this is a particular part of European law—are required to have
“full regard to the welfare requirements of animals, while respecting the legislative or administrative provisions and customs of the Member States relating in particular to religious rites, cultural traditions and regional heritage.”
I will try to get an amendment included in the Bill—I hope that the Government will support the amendment, which I will table shortly—stating that “the recommendations by the committee must respect the legislative or administrative provisions and customs relating in particular to religious rights, cultural traditions and regional heritage”. I say tactfully to my right hon. Friend that, as that is the wording in European law, I hope very much that he might consider such an amendment, so that we can at least focus the committee’s work, instead of it having the very wide-ranging remit that it now has.
Will the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), give us an assurance that nothing in the Bill will have an impact on activities conducted with all regard to animal welfare within the law? Does she believe, as some do, that sentience confers rights and, if so, what rights are conferred?
In conclusion, clarity, clarity, clarity is required on animal welfare advice in government. I am talking about the composition and remit of the committee, the balance between the public interest and sentience, and assurances that legal activities, such as research, farming and country sports, will not be damaged by the Bill.  I say to the Secretary of State and the Minister: please could we have an answer to that final question when the Minister sums up?

Deidre Brock: Animal welfare is a devolved issue and the scope of the Bill is largely England-only. With that established, the Scottish National party broadly welcomes the legislation and is pleased that the UK Government are following our lead in this area. The Scottish Government pledged to maintain high animal welfare standards after we left the EU and, in June 2020, established the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission, which is an independent body of leading animal welfare experts responsible for developing expert recommendations on issues relating to animal welfare and sentience. The Bill seeks to replicate its evidence-based policymaking success and expert-driven approach.
The SNP and the Scottish Government take animal welfare extremely seriously. Our party has been vocal in addressing concerns at UK level, and the Scottish Government’s programme for government committed to taking steps to strengthen animal welfare legislation. Each financial year, the commission must prepare a work plan setting out how it intends to perform its functions. It then produces an annual report, laid before the Scottish Parliament, detailing how it has delivered against the work plan. It has the power to establish committees and sub-committees, and the first meeting of the sentience sub-committee took place in November 2021. That group has the function of reviewing sentience-related issues, filtering and prioritising the commission’s programme of work.
The establishment of the commission offered an opportunity post Brexit to replicate article 13. Given that since January 2021, for the first time in more than two decades, there has been no legal requirement for the welfare of animals as sentient beings to be considered in the UK Government’s policy process, it really is about time this place implemented its replacement.
Concerns have been raised about the membership of England’s Animal Sentience Committee, as well as its resources, structure and operation. The Bill has not been updated to address any of those concerns and is essentially the same as when it was introduced, which I note created quite a stooshie in the other place. In my view, membership regulations ought to be considered for the Bill, as should the structures in which they may operate. As an example of where issues could occur, will foxes be considered as sentient beings and will they be granted such protections by the committee, or will that be another cultural flashpoint?
We recommend that the committee avoids being too prescriptive—I know that is the Minister’s view—but rather follows the lead of the evidence-led SAWC. The commission reports welfare policies and recommendations to Scottish Ministers, and just as it has a statutory duty to publish any such advice, the Animal Sentience Committee must also publish its reporting. The Scottish Government have often acted upon the recommendations of the commission. Sensible and pragmatic solutions to policy issues such as beaver reintroduction and management of deer have been taken forward on the basis of the commission’s advice. The commission has also strongly welcomed and worked on the Animals and Wildlife  (Penalties, Protections and Powers) (Scotland) Act 2020 and the Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) (Scotland) Regulations 2021.
Let me give an example of what England’s new Animal Sentience Committee might examine. Following concerns raised by a number of animal welfare groups, the Scottish Government announced a review of the trade and importation of exotic pets, and of potential threats to animal health and welfare, human health, and native species in Scotland. An interim report was published last year by the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission outlining concerns about the welfare of exotic pets, including their sourcing, breeding, transport and keeping. I understand that the Minister of State is keeping tabs on that work. We will of course be happy if the UK Government make use of the final report when it is published and carry out their own investigations. The Scottish National party also welcomes the Bill’s recognition of cephalopods and decapod crustaceans as sentient.
Although the Bill largely applies only to England, there are areas of it that the SNP believes must be strengthened, notably in respect of animal cosmetics and scientific procedures, which are matters reserved to the UK Government. There has been some mention of European Union regulations today. In September last year, the European Parliament voted for an EU-wide action plan with clear objectives as well as, crucially, timelines for the phasing out of the use of animals in research, regulatory testing and education. It envisages that happening through the reduction, refining and replacement of procedures on live animals for scientific purposes, as soon as it is scientifically possible and with no lowering of the level of protection for human health and the environment. In fact, the EU has leapt in front of the UK on animal welfare standards. We call on the UK Government to reclaim the leadership on this issue that they have shown in the past.
The Bill legislates to enshrine the ability of animals to experience joy and feel suffering and pain, but unfortunately the UK Government do not seek to recognise that animals undergoing scientific experiments or Ministry of Defence tests have rights to sentience; they are excluded from protections. A written question from the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) revealed that the Ministry of Defence has carried out nearly 59,000 experimental procedures on animals since 2009. The SNP therefore calls for greater transparency in the animal research industry, and for a commitment in the Bill on the sentience of animals and their welfare rights in relation to the outdated methods used in animal testing and military experiments.

Alison Thewliss: My hon. Friend has made a good point about experimentation on animals by the MOD. Does she share my concern about the fact that it includes primates? As recently as 2018, 56 marmosets were subject to such experimentation.

Deidre Brock: I very much share my hon. Friend’s concern, and I will say more about that later. I genuinely believe that the general public are not aware of the extent and nature of these experiments, or of which animals are used in them. If amendments to the Bill are tabled and accepted in Committee, that may help the public to appreciate what is going on, and may help to reduce reliance on such experiments.
Every two minutes in the UK, a dog, cat, rabbit, rat, monkey, goat, sheep, mouse, or fish suffers from brutal animal testing conducted on it against its sentience and welfare rights, but a survey conducted in 2020 by the UK charity FRAME—the Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments—found that 84% of respondents would not buy a cosmetics product if they knew that it, or one of its ingredients, had been tested on animals. Animals in laboratories can legally be poisoned with toxic chemicals, shot, irradiated, gassed, blown up, drowned, stabbed, burned, starved, or restrained to the point at which they develop ulcers or heart failure. They can have their bones broken or their limbs amputated. They can be subject to inescapable electric shocks, driven to depression, deprived of sleep to the point of brain damage, or infected with diseases.
A YouGov poll commissioned by Cruelty Free International shows that people in Scotland and Wales believe that more should be done to prioritise humane and human-relevant science. The findings reveal that seven out of 10 adults living in Scotland and Wales find it unacceptable to use animals for experiments when alternative non-animal research methods are available. In addition, more than three quarters of adults living in Scotland and Wales believe that alternatives to animal tests should be a funding priority in the UK for science and innovation, and a majority in Scotland and Wales want deadlines for phasing out animal tests. I look forward to further discussions on that as the Bill goes through its stages.
When Scottish and Welsh residents were asked about use of specific species in research, they consistently said that it was unacceptable to test on dogs, cats and monkeys, yet despite those public concerns, the UK remains one of the top users in Europe of primates and dogs in experiments. The more we understand animals’ sentience, capabilities and emotions, the more the idea of granting rights to animals is worth taking seriously, urgently. The Scottish National party supports the Bill but urges the Government to address those ongoing issues.

Jonathan Djanogly: When I looked at the Bill, I tried first, as I do with any Bill, to work out its purpose and who or what it is trying to assist. I must say that I am still far from having the answer to either question. Actually, the more I look at the Bill, listen to experts and read the record of proceedings in the other place, the more confused I am about what we are trying to do.
While everyone knows what animal welfare is and values what the Bill is intended to do, nothing in it, and no one, can either define animal sentience or say how it is measured. As a result, the phrase becomes a kind of forerunner of what science may, but does not yet, tell us. The Bill is effectively a statement of direction, but does not quite know where to start or where it will finish. It does not define animal sentience, so Ministers will have no gauge to work against. As a result, we legislators are in effect being asked to vote blind on it. The new committee will accordingly have to make things up as it goes along.
At the same time, various lobbyists will push the committee towards reviewing everything that they see as being important to their various causes. If the committee  does not produce many—or enough—reports, it will be attacked for inaction. However, if it produces too many reports, it will be attacked for exercising power without democratic oversight or care for costs or whatever. If the Government fail to act on the committee’s views, they will be attacked for inaction, or possibly judicially reviewed. If they do act on them, people could claim that such proposals should come from those who are democratically elected, rather than from an unanswerable committee, or they could say that the Government are using the committee as a stalking horse to avoid taking the blame for proposals that they might think look a bit unpopular. In effect, whichever way one looks at the proposals, they are fraught with problems on every side. One has to wonder why we are doing this. What is there to gain from the Bill other than some short-term, soft publicity because it is somehow about being nice to animals?
Of course, as was mentioned in the other place, in reality, the Bill is not just about public relations, because those involved in minority areas of activity in our national life are realising that it could easily be used against them. Yes, I did see the assurances that the Government gave in the other place that the Bill would not attack the Jewish and Muslim religious animal slaughter practices of shechita and halal, and blatantly yes, the Bill makes no direct attack on those practices, but it does open up indirect lines of attack that could easily be used to prejudice or damage those minority religious practices. Importantly, as was explained clearly by my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), the Bill has no exemptions on the grounds of religious rights, cultural traditions and regional heritage, although those exemptions were included in the equivalent EU legislation. That should be corrected; I will be with him on that.
If the new committee were, for instance, to come up with regular reports against non-stunning slaughter practices, the pressure for change would quickly switch to Ministers. I would defend those religious practices, although that is not today’s debate. However, it is relevant to argue that any such changes should be formulated and debated by Ministers and then Parliament, not the new committee. If science does eventually tell us what sentience means and how it can be measured, and if all animal welfare will need to be improved as a result, why farm that out to a committee rather than deal with it directly? The committee will be appointed by the Ministers of the day, and let us acknowledge that the Ministers whom we politically support today will not be there on a change of Government. For that matter, if there is to be a committee, why does it have to be set up by statute if it will have no executive powers?
I was very surprised by the unwillingness of Ministers to engage on this issue or accept amendments in the other place, despite the Bill being hugely contentious. I hope that attitude will now change. There seems to be a lack of focus on what the committee will do, and the possible implications. It seems that it will have a full roving remit across Whitehall, although how it would interact with Departments is vague, as is how it would interact with the existing animal welfare machinery, specifically the animal welfare committee. We do not know. Why not make this new committee part of the animal welfare committee?
As chairman of the British Shooting Sports Council and a Member with a rural constituency, I have been approached by many to voice their concerns that the Bill is being used as a smokescreen to enable attacks on farming practices and wildlife management processes, as well as field sports. In the last few years, for instance, the lobby against game shooting has become increasingly litigious and now regularly uses judicial review to query a wide range of shooting issues, such as where game shooting can take place and what can be shot using general licences. The idea that such people will not attempt judicial review of decisions taken by Ministers on the back of the new committee’s findings is, frankly, unrealistic.
I predict that the Bill will: complicate many rural activities; add complexity and require legal opinions and court appearances; and add cost and bureaucracy. Despite the Bill being welcomed by the Opposition, it is, to my mind, a poor piece of legislation.

Luke Pollard: It is good to follow the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly). I do not agree with most things he said, but he made a few points that I liked and will come to in my remarks. I welcome the Bill and I will support it today.
The Bill has come a long way since it was first introduced. It is a really good example of how Bills should be improved, especially through prelegislative scrutiny, rather than being stuck in the House of Lords. Many of the amendments made in the House of Lords should have been made in prelegislative scrutiny, so that we did not have a reformed Bill coming to the House of Commons.
I echo the remarks made by the new shadow Environment Secretary, and especially the thanks to Baroness Hayman for her sterling work in the other place, particularly on including cephalopods and decapods in the scope of the Bill. I welcome the fact that the era of boiling lobsters alive will come to an end. That is down to the work of Baroness Hayman and her colleagues in the House of Lords, and is long overdue.
The Bill is not really necessary, so to a certain extent the remarks from the hon. Members for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) and for Huntingdon were right in one respect: this really should have been mapped over in Brexit legislation. Of all the rules passed by the European Union during our membership, this is the only one that the Government chose not to map over. Why was that? Was it because there is an ideological divide over animal sentience? Was it because of a real desire to change the situation? Or was it because the Government fell foul of a debate that led to an outcry? This should not have been necessary; the measures should have been mapped over in Brexit legislation, and we should be spending our time looking at how we can improve animal welfare, rather than correcting the mistakes by the Government in the Brexit negotiations.
The Bill needs to work, however, and it is important that we get the detail right. Further work is needed to do that. Some of it is in the very short Bill, but the majority is in the terms of reference that accompany it. It is a shame that the Government have not put more effort into explaining what is in the terms of reference, because much of the detail about how the Animal Sentience Committee will work is in there. Many of the  things that we need to improve are not in the Bill, but in the terms of reference, so it is important that we look at those.
There are three main changes that we should make to the Bill and that I hope will be accepted in Committee. First, we should remove the word “adverse” from clause 2(2), which says that the Animal Sentience Committee should have
“due regard to the ways in which the policy might have an adverse effect on the welfare of animals as sentient beings.”
As my Green colleague, the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), said, there really is no need to include the word “adverse”; if anything, it limits the legislation’s ambition and fails to deliver on the Government’s objectives. In the politics around animal welfare, it is quite a dated concept to use the word “adverse”, with its negative connotation in respect of animal welfare. It suggests that the job of animal welfare legislation is just to stop humans doing bad things to animals. It fails to consider the welfare agenda of the 21st century: what is a life well lived for an animal? How can we ensure not only that suffering is kept to a minimum but that animals enjoy a good quality of life? To delete “adverse” would not distract from the Government’s objectives in the Bill; indeed, it would arguably deliver a lot more on them. I hope that the Government will support an amendment to that end in Committee.
Secondly, on scope, I know that Ministers want the Bill to apply first to Government Departments—to the main Departments of State—but there is a strong case for Ministers to set out how they would accelerate its roll-out to apply it to non-departmental public bodies. For instance, I find it hard to justify the idea that the Bill will apply to the Department for Work and Pensions before it applies to Natural England and the Environment Agency. That does not make much sense, so I would be grateful if the Minister could set out the timetable for applying the Bill to every single non-departmental public body, and particularly to all the bodies in DEFRA-land, to ensure that they are within the scope of the Animal Sentience Committee. I would like this legislation and the committee to be in place by September this year; it is not unreasonable to argue that in September 2023, 12 months from that point, the legislation should apply to all non-departmental public bodies. I would be grateful if the Minister could set out whether that is the Government’s intention.
Thirdly, I am concerned about enforcement. I know that the Secretary of State will not like my saying this but, in my new-found freedom as a Back Bencher, let me be bold and speak frankly: DEFRA is a weak Department that does not really scare other Departments. The idea of DEFRA knocking on the door of, say, the Ministry of Defence to question its full implementation of animal sentience guidance is akin to a sardine taking on an Astute-class submarine: we are British and love the underdog, but it is not going to win. We need to be honest about that in relation to this legislation.
According to the guidance that accompanies the Bill, the Animal Sentience Committee will produce approximately six to eight reports a year. It seems to me that instead of allowing the delivery of written statements to the House of Commons three months after the Departments in question have made their initial reports, it makes much more sense for the Secretary of State to come to the House to make an oral statement, to enable  parliamentarians to scrutinise the Animal Sentience Committee’s bulk report all in one go. I am concerned that the lack of such a parliamentary opportunity will limit the effectiveness of the legislation.
If the Secretary of State is keen to avoid the scrutiny opportunity of an annual moment, when he may also wish to set out the year-long cross-Government animal sentience strategy that is missing from the Bill, perhaps the Minister could set out the desired route by which parliamentarians will be able to question the effectiveness of the reports and whether they have led to any action or have simply been talking shops, designed to make Departments look but busy without delivering. Will we need to look to the good offices of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee to take time out of its busy schedule to analyse each report? Will we need a Backbench Business Committee slot to come free? Or will we need the Speaker to look favourably on a Member at DEFRA questions so that we can scrutinise any of the committee’s reports on the Floor of the House? I fear that without effective enforcement and proper parliamentary scrutiny, the Bill risks becoming a well-intentioned but meaningless piece of legislation.
It is important to look at the committee’s powers. The committee must have proper powers to investigate. Page 9 of the draft guidance the Government have released says that Departments will not have a legal duty to consult the committee. That is really important: Departments will not be required to co-operate with the Animal Sentience Committee. How can the committee improve accountability if Departments can simply decline to participate or to give information? The draft terms of reference suggest that if
“a Department fails to engage with the Committee or assist it with reasonable requests for information as it prepares a report, the Committee may record this non-cooperation in said report.”
That is a scary threat. How will Departments cope with the prospect of getting a black mark on their school report that will barely get any parliamentary scrutiny? What is missing here is a legal duty for Government Departments to co-operate and share information with the Animal Sentience Committee, to ensure that any concerns are properly followed up, otherwise the committee will not have the powers it needs.
I am interested in how DEFRA has come to the conclusion that there should not be a legal requirement to co-operate with the Animal Sentience Committee. Has there been an assessment of DEFRA’s own likelihood of co-operating with the committee? If so, will that assessment be published? Which Department is most likely not to co-operate with the Animal Sentience Committee? Is it the Ministry of Defence? Is it DEFRA? These are the questions to which we need an answer.
The Government admit in the draft terms of reference:
“The co-operation of UK Government Departments is necessary for the Committee to be able to work most effectively.”
But the Government are making that co-operation voluntary. It will be an option for any Secretary of State whose priority might not be animal sentience. Indeed, if they are being investigated, they probably will not have properly considered animal sentience in the development of policy. I suggest the Government take their own advice and make it a legal obligation for Departments to co-operate with the Animal Sentience Committee. That is another amendment that I hope will be moved in Committee. Perhaps the Environment Secretary will  report annually on how many Departments are not co-operating with this new committee, as that would be very interesting for the House to know.
There are concerns about the independence of the Animal Sentience Committee and about who should be a member. In that respect, I share some of the concerns raised by the Countryside Alliance, which is not a likely bedfellow for me—the Countryside Alliance is generous and warm in how it describes me in these remarks. It is important that the membership of the committee is broad and has expertise, but it is also important that its members are clear and transparent about their involvement.
Annex A of the draft terms of reference sets out that the interests of members of the committee will be registered, and I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that, under paragraph (h) of annex A—on any organisations or work relevant to the committee—it will be very clear that all members of the committee, if they are part of a foxhunt, will need to declare it as an interest. I agree with the Countryside Alliance that it is important we have broad-based and transparent involvement. It is important that the interests of every member of the committee are transparently declared.
Finally, I want to address the inaccurate report that the Bill could, in any way, stop our fishers and farmers doing what they do best. We are in a strange period in which the UK does not have animal sentience legislation. We have not had it since we left the European Union because the Government chose not to copy it over, but we will have it again when this Bill passes, as it will.
The hysterical reports from the media and some lobbying groups suggesting that the Bill could affect fishing and farming are incorrect. Britain rightly demands high animal welfare standards for kept and wild animals, and we should be clear that that should continue with this Bill. The Secretary of State has my full support on that, but I echo my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon) and the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) in saying that we need high animal welfare standards in our trade deals, because it is not acceptable that the Australia trade deal undercuts our farmers by allowing food produced to lower animal welfare standards to be sold in the UK.
I echo a Labour colleague in saying that we need to tighten up the Hunting Act 2004 to stop foxhunting being a 21st-century practice. Trail hunting is an excuse for the live hunting of foxes and we need to close such loopholes. I am disappointed that this Bill does not provide the opportunity to do so.
Much of the Government’s animal welfare legislation has come from Labour’s animal welfare manifesto. There are many members of the 2019 intake in the Chamber, and I am sure they have read it thoroughly because, in many cases, they will have voted for many of the manifesto’s soundbites from the Government Benches, but it is not sufficient just to borrow the headlines from Labour’s animal welfare manifesto; the Government must borrow the detail, too. I encourage the Minister to look again at his well-thumbed copy to see what more he can borrow.
This is an okay Bill. It is half a pace forward, but it could be a full stride forward if we get the detail right. I hope that will happen in Committee.
3.54 pm

Richard Drax: This is a bad Bill, an unnecessary Bill and a Trojan horse for those who have no understanding of, and sadly in some cases despise, the countryside and all that goes on in it. Before I start, I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
We left the EU in order to pass our own laws, I hope guided by common sense and only where necessary, but this Bill is even more intrusive than the former legislation under EU law. It is a skeleton of a Bill, one that is not necessary and, indeed, it has the potential for great harm. I say “skeleton” because many aspects of the Bill are unclear. Who will be appointed to the committee? What skills will they have? How will it be resourced? Why is this a statutory committee when others are not? Why will it have the power to pass secondary legislation, and is this because the Bill itself has simply not been thought through and revision by whoever is in power will need to be accommodated? Why is the committee’s authority seemingly limitless, with its remit to cover all policy across all Departments, and what implications, which could be onerous, does that have for each Department?
As two of my colleagues have asked so far, what is sentience? It is simply not defined. To me, this will mean that the committee will examine the effect of Government policy on the welfare of animals as sentient beings. Sentience has long been recognised in Parliament. We have had animal welfare Bills since 1822. The most recent—it has already been mentioned—is the Animal Welfare Act 2006. They go far beyond the minimum standards set by the EU. Animal sentience is a fact, which is why welfare matters and why we have the highest standards. Then there is the question of the particular circumstances of the sentient animal. Animals kept by man are surely different from animals in the wild, even if both are sentient. To this end, I share the concerns of the noble Lord Etherton, who described this Bill as a magnet for judicial review.
I used the expression “Trojan horse” at the start, and what I mean is that I and many others fear that those with different agendas—often partisan and politically motivated—will hijack this committee and its role to attack activities such as shooting and fishing. I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) mention fishing a moment ago, but he did not include shooting. The Countryside Alliance rightly believes that the Bill lacks the necessary details and safeguards to prevent the committee from extending its reach to rural activities, and in Labour and other hands that is exactly where this committee will head.
This Bill emanated from the Lords, where on Third Reading the noble Lord Herbert said that proposed amendments defining sentience, limiting the committee’s scope, ensuring scientific expertise, and balancing provision for religious, cultural and regional heritage were all refused by the Government as “not necessary”. This committee will be another bureaucracy whose tentacles will reach far and wide. A partisan committee will bring with it division and hostility where there need be none. Why on earth a Conservative Government are driving a coach and horses straight at our core supporters and many others is quite beyond me. I very much look forward to dramatic changes to this Bill before I would even begin to support it.

Kerry McCarthy: It feels rather odd to be rising after three Tory Back Benchers in a row—the only three Tory Back Benchers who have spoken in this debate—have all criticised a Government Bill, so I am here to lend my support to the Government, and I hope the Secretary of State is grateful for that.
By the time the Bill becomes law it will be more than six years since the UK voted to leave the European Union. It is now more than four years since the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) moved an amendment to the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, which I seconded, calling on the Government to recognise animal sentience, as enshrined in article 13 of the Lisbon treaty, in UK law. It is four years since the Government promised to legislate, although that was only in a bid to stave off a Back-Bench rebellion after a big public campaign urged MPs to support the amendment. It has to be said that Tory Back Benchers back then seemed a lot more enthusiastic about supporting animal sentience—perhaps that is what comes of recent electoral changes.
It has been nearly three years since I introduced my own ten-minute rule Bill on animal sentience. That was after we took evidence at the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and the Minister kept saying, “We really want to bring measures forward, but we need the right legislative vehicle.” So I introduced a ten-minute rule Bill and said, “Here’s your legislative vehicle on a plate,” but the Government did not seem interested. It is also nearly two years since the Petitions Committee debate in Westminster Hall and well over a year since the end of the transition period, so we have been waiting a long time. Forgive me if I am a little cynical, but I am not entirely convinced that the Government really wanted this legislation at all, and I think that was borne out by the contributions from the three Conservative Back Benchers that we have heard from so far today.
I thank the campaigners and members of the public who have emailed MPs, signed petitions and kept pressing, because that is why the Government have finally produced this Bill. This pattern of promising action on animal welfare but taking forever to act is typical of this Government. We have seen it on ivory imports, trophy hunting, live exports and foie gras imports, as well as on refusing to crack down on the cruel and environmentally destructive practice of grouse shooting or to close the loopholes that have allowed fox hunting to continue. It is beyond me why an MP would stand here and say that we need to amend the Bill so that we have the right to be cruel to animals just because that has been traditional in this country. That is not exactly the definition of progress.
Nevertheless, despite my concerns about the Government’s credentials, I am glad the Bill has finally come before Parliament, and with a significant win for campaigners—the recognition of decapods and cephalopods as sentient beings. A couple of MPs have said that sentience is not defined. One reason the Government gave for the delay to this legislation was that they needed to carry out research. They got the London School of Economics to do research, and the LSE said:
“Sentience (from the Latin sentire, to feel) is the capacity to have feelings. Feelings may include, for example, feelings of pain, distress, anxiety, boredom, hunger, thirst, pleasure, warmth, joy, comfort, and excitement.”
There we go: that is the definition of sentience. I would have hoped that those MPs would look at the LSE definition.

Luke Pollard: The point I made in my remarks was that the terms of reference that accompany the Bill actually include a definition of sentience, and it is very similar to the one my hon. Friend has read out. Would it not be better if that definition was included in the Bill and not hidden in the terms of reference?

Kerry McCarthy: That might be a matter for the Bill Committee, so that we avoid some of the criticisms we have seen. I hope that the recognition of the sentience of decapods and cephalopods will mean an end to gross acts of cruelty, such as unstunned lobsters being boiled alive in the cooking process. When the Minister winds up, I hope she can confirm that that will indeed become illegal if the Bill passes, as the LSE recommended in its research.
We know that the octopus is an incredibly intelligent creature. I was shocked to read recently that the world’s first commercial octopus farm is set to be established in Spain. The farm will not be on UK soil, but the Government could ban imports and outlaw any such farms in UK waters, again as proposed in LSE research.
As has been mentioned, there are concerns about clause 2, which requires the proposed Animal Sentience Committee to consider only the adverse effects of policy decisions on animals, not the positive effects. I was not entirely convinced by the Minister’s very brief response to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion on that, and I hope the issue can be discussed in Committee.
I often say this in such debates, but I somewhat hate the self-congratulatory, complacent approach to animal welfare in this country. People are so very keen to boast of how good we are, but there are still many examples of where animals are abused and exploited. Industrially farmed animals can still face horrific, overcrowded and unsanitary conditions and be subject to abuse by those who purport to care for them. With live exports, we see animals suffering from thirst, overcrowding and overheating —again, in appalling conditions. The Environmental Audit Committee has just reported on poor water quality in UK rivers, and one of the key sources of water pollution was sewage run-off and agricultural slurry from intensive farming.
Undercover investigations from organisations such as Animal Equality and Viva! have exposed horrific conditions. Last year, it was revealed that cows were beaten with electric prods and sheep and pigs were slaughtered without adequate stunning at the G & GB Hewitt abattoir in Cheshire. We have seen reports of overcrowding, filthy conditions and even cannibalism among pigs on Hogwood Pig Farm. We have seen pigs being killed by having their heads slammed to the floor on Yattendon pig farm, chickens dying in heatwaves at Moy Park farm and chickens dying of thirst, suffering ammonia burns or resorting to cannibalism on multiple chicken farms that supply Tesco. All the farms I have mentioned were Red Tractor-approved, with supposedly higher animal welfare. We have a long way to go.
I echo what the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) said about the need to reduce dramatically the number of animal experiments, and the shadow Secretary of State’s concern about importing  lower animal welfare standards into the country as a result of recent trade deals. All that leads me to a wider point about what we want our relationship with the animal kingdom to be. The reality is that biodiversity has plummeted by 60% since 1970, yet a staggering 60% of all mammals on this planet are now livestock, as industrial agriculture booms. Only 4% of mammals now are wild animals. That shows the impact that humans have had on the natural world: we have confined nature to farms and destroyed whatever is left outside them.
It is also estimated that since the dawn of human civilisation, 15% of fish biomass has been lost and 70% of global fish stocks are now either fully exploited or over-exploited. Renowned oceanographer Sylvia Earle recently said that humans treat oceans like a “free grocery store”, and called on us to respect marine creatures in the same way we do elephants.
Recognition of the sentience of animals is the first step in a better relationship with them, so I welcome the Bill and urge colleagues to support it—but recognition is one thing, and respect is another. If we truly respect animals, we must do a lot more than just pay lip service to sentience: we must end the exploitation and abuse of animals on factory farms; stop treating animals as commodities; end the hunting and shooting of animals for sport; and halt and reverse the devastating damage that we have done to the natural world. I hope that all those issues can come out as a result of this Bill. It is just a starting point, but it is important to get the concept of animal sentience on the record, and I am happy to support it.

Lindsay Hoyle: We now have a maiden speech. I welcome Louie French.

Louie French: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to make my maiden speech in this important debate. It is a true privilege to stand among these green Benches as the Member of Parliament for Old Bexley and Sidcup, a place I have called home all my life. I thank colleagues for their warm reception today and for the party’s support throughout the by-election. Who would have thought that someone with the surname French would be so warmly welcomed by so many Brexiteers? If the Home Secretary could have forecast my voting against the Government in my first month, she might have deployed the Navy even earlier.
All jokes aside, I am more than happy to give my full support to the Government on the Bill and their wider efforts to improve animal welfare across the UK. As already outlined, the Bill builds on the Animal Welfare Act 2006 by recognising sentience in law and requires the Government to set up an Animal Sentience Committee to examine whether the welfare of animals as sentient beings has been given due regard in policy decisions.
The Bill has rightly received support from a range of animal welfare organisations and is welcomed by the majority of residents in Old Bexley and Sidcup, who, like me, are animal lovers. We recognise that animals feel joy and pain, and as such should be considered in future policy decisions, including the strengthening of  sentencing for those who carry out the callous acts of cruelty and pet theft. Pet theft remains a real problem for families across Bexley and the country overall; I hope that the tougher sentences for such crimes will act as a deterrent to future offenders. On the subject of offenders, I confirm that I am not the lovechild of Norman Stanley Fletcher from “Porridge”, as has been speculated.
In representing the constituency of Old Bexley and Sidcup, I follow my good friend, the late James Brokenshire. I know hon. Members on both sides of the House mourn the loss of James, who was a friendly, thoughtful and well-liked gentleman. It is a great privilege to have Cathy in the Gallery today.
James was first elected to the House in 2005 as the MP for Hornchurch, and was elected in 2010 as the MP for Old Bexley and Sidcup. James was an outstanding constituency MP, who fought for the people of Old Bexley and Sidcup every day, never forgetting that it was them who placed him in this House. James was also a diligent and effective Minister, serving the country in some of the most sensitive and demanding positions under three successive Prime Ministers.
James was a true and loyal friend to me over many years, and I will always value the support he provided and the memories we shared, as I know many across this House do. Although I own significantly fewer ovens than he and Cathy, and I do not share his love for West Ham United, which largely reflected his Essex roots, I humbly recognise that he is a tough act to follow. I hope to be able to continue his legacy in some way.
Old Bexley and Sidcup is a fantastic seat to represent, and I am honoured to have been elected as the first home-grown MP to serve the communities across Old Bexley, Blackfen and Lamorbey, Blendon and Penhill, East Wickham, Longlands, North Cray, Sidcup, and Falconwood and Welling. The constituency is located in south-east London, but with its picturesque churches, charming pubs and beautiful green spaces, it is clear that Old Bexley and Sidcup is also firmly within Kent, with a strong sense of tradition and patriotism throughout the constituency.
Many hon. Friends visited my lovely home area during my election campaign, for which I am grateful. I would encourage all hon. Members to visit what I believe is the best constituency to represent, where they will find many fantastic businesses and some of the most scenic parks and open spaces, including Foots Cray meadows, with the five arches bridge over the River Cray.
Old Bexley and Sidcup also played an important role in the great war, through the pioneering work of Sir Harold Gillies at Queen Mary’s Hospital Sidcup, which opened in 1917. That was where almost every soldier who had suffered a facial injury was sent for ground-breaking facial reconstructive surgery, led by surgeon, Sir Harold, the man widely recognised as the father of modern plastic surgery. The medical staff at Queen Mary’s Hospital also went further, considering, perhaps for the first time, the long-term psychological effects on those disfigured by warfare, using methods of treatment and care that underpin the work undertaken by medical professionals in support of today’s armed forces.
The constituency also boasts two world-class drama schools, Rose Bruford College and Bird College, with notable alumni, including Gary Oldman, who most famously portrayed Winston Churchill in “The Darkest  Hour”. Notable residents of Old Bexley and Sidcup are not limited to Rose Bruford alumni, and have included Roald Dahl, Quentin Blake, Roger Moore and Kate Bush, which highlights how culture and the arts lie at the heart of Old Bexley and Sidcup.
As a borough of aspiration, which is reflected in my own journey to this place, we are rightly proud of our fantastic local schools and colleges. Like many families in the constituency, my mother moved us to Bexley when I was born to benefit from the excellent local schools, in my case the old Westwood Infants and Juniors, now called Bishop Ridley Primary School; the old Westwood College, now called Harris Academy Falconwood; and not forgetting Blackfen Sixth Form, where I believe my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) taught at one point. [Hon. Members: “Oh!”] I apologise, Mr Speaker, on behalf of the constituency. [Laughter.]
I am determined to use my time in this place to do everything I can for our community, and ensure that it continues to be a great place to live. That includes campaigning to secure extra facilities at Queen Mary’s Hospital; increased availability of GP appointments and police on our streets; working to ensure our schools stay excellent; protecting our precious local green spaces; and ensuring Southeastern commuters finally see a much-needed improvement to our rail services.
I would like to finish by reciting James’s words in his maiden speech. He said that
“hope is one of the most valuable things that we can offer. In a small way, I will try to provide that sense of hope to my constituents, by standing up on the issues that matter to them, by listening to those who think that no one is prepared to be interested in their concerns, and by giving a voice in the House to those who have none.”—[Official Report, 9 June 2005; Vol. 447, c. 1470.]
James remained true to his word and I will continue this when serving my local area. In electing me as their Member of Parliament, the constituents of Old Bexley and Sidcup have given me the greatest honour of my life, and I pledge to serve them with the upmost integrity, dedication and care.

Lindsay Hoyle: A fitting tribute from the new Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup. We all think of the former Member, who was a friend to us all.

Hon. Members:: Hear, hear.

Emma Hardy: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French). I was moved by his kind and thoughtful contribution on his predecessor, who was indeed well respected and admired by Members across the House. I think his constituency sounds beautiful. I liked the talk of the meadows and I had no idea Roald Dhal lived there. Perhaps I should pop down and visit. It is always good to welcome a fellow animal lover to the House of Commons, and I wish him all the best.
It is no exaggeration to say that I am contacted daily by constituents on one aspect or another of animal welfare. The recognition of animal sentience in law has been a consistent question since I became an MP in 2017. Many of us remember the famous amendment on animal sentience tabled during the constant Brexit debates. I certainly remember the flurry of emails, social media, tweets and messages on Facebook that followed, with  numerous people telling me how important animal sentience was to them. It is, of course, entirely proper that the Government of the UK, famed as a nation of animal lovers, should act to remedy that issue. I am here to briefly, but carefully, represent the many voices of the people from Hull West and Hessle who contacted me on the issue.
No one who has looked after animals or spent time watching them in the wild can have any doubt that they are aware and can experience emotions. If you will forgive me for one moment, Madam Deputy Speaker, I do have to mention my two cats, Thomas and Serena, who have entirely different personalities. They are absolutely wonderful and dispel the idea that they cannot experience emotion when I can tell by looking at them exactly how they are feeling. One of the greatest inventions of the internet, of course, is #catsoftwitter, which I recommend to all Members. If they are having a bad news day, they should have a quick look at it and it will cheer them up.
It is worth reminding Members that we are animals, too. We are only different by degree, and more and more scientific research is showing us how slim that difference of degree is. Free or captive, wild or domesticated, our fellow animals should be treated with compassion and respect, and it is proper that the Bill recognises that by applying it to all. In fact, the continuing advances in our scientific understanding of animal sentience were what made the Government decide against including a definition of sentience in the Bill. I am pleased to hear that although a definition might not be in the Bill, it is in the terms of reference. That growing understanding has led to the inclusion of cephalopods and decapods, which include octopuses and lobsters, as sentient animals for the purposes of UK animal welfare law.
I want to mention the few small reservations I have. Although my remarks are in support of the Bill and those from the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) were against, we share similar concerns about the composition of the committee. Who will sit on the committee? How will they be chosen? What powers will they have? How independent will they be of Government? My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) made an incredibly useful contribution to the debate, because he detailed his concerns about the committee and the fact that it will have no power even to tell DEFRA how to conduct itself.

Bill Wiggin: I quite agree with the hon. Lady. Why will she not then persuade those on her Front Bench to vote against this nonsense?

Emma Hardy: In general, we support the Bill. We hope that in Committee some of our reservations will be looked at and the Bill amended—[Interruption.] I see the Minister nodding at me from the Government Front Bench. So far, during the passage of the Bill, the Government seem to be willing to consider amending and improving it. I hope that that will continue.
The Bill does not propose a duty on Ministers to consider the welfare needs of animals when making policy. I think those points were very well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport. I draw attention to the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon), who is not in his place. I hope the Government will look again at hunting with dogs and at animal standards abroad.
The points made about free trade deals are very concerning. I have had numerous emails from constituents on that point and they are very worried. Some of the flippant responses such as, “Well, they don’t have to buy that meat, then,” fail to recognise the fact that when price is taken into consideration many families might feel that they have no choice. We need to look at some of the animal standards we are importing.
I agree that we should have an annual oral statement, as a written statement produced for Parliament does not give the same chance for scrutiny. That is a weakness of the Bill that I hope the Minister will address.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) for raising a point about the use of primates in experiments by the Ministry of Defence, because I had no awareness of that whatsoever, so I am grateful that she has brought it to my attention. I hope the Minister can comment, because I find it hugely concerning.
Although I support the Bill, there are a few points that I hope the Government will take away and consider so that when it comes back for its final votes on Report it is much improved.

Neil Hudson: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy).
It is a pleasure and privilege to speak in the debate on a very important Bill that Opposition Members will be pleased to hear this Member of Parliament strongly supports. I declare a strong professional interest as a veterinary surgeon; the Bill will be so important in recognising animal sentience in UK legislation.
In the current political climate I am loth to get into intricate debates about the difference between the words “implicit” and “explicit”, but, as the Secretary of State said, animal sentience has been implicit in UK law since the Cruel Treatment of Cattle Act 1822, and it remains implicitly acknowledged in current animal welfare legislation, including the Animal Welfare Act 2006. I feel that this House and the Government missed a trick in 2017 by not transferring into UK legislation the part of article 13 of the Lisbon treaty that recognised that animals are sentient beings, because that would have been easy to do. That said, by not doing it, we now have an amazing opportunity to put animal sentience at the heart of UK legislation, and that is very important. I also welcome it as the Government’s fulfilling of a manifesto promise, which I strongly support.
I very much welcome the fact that cephalopod molluscs and decapod crustaceans are now included in the Bill. That sets a really good example. The Government have commissioned a piece of work from the London School of Economics and they have listened to it. I am very encouraged by that; I just wish they would do it a little more often.
Although I welcome the Bill, I very much recognise the contributions from Opposition Members who say that we need to be clearer on some of the details and specifics. I recognise that, by definition, this is a brief and general overarching Bill, which is probably quite sensible. That said, I would very much like it to define  the term “sentience” in some way. In the 2017 Bill consultation, 79% of responses called for the inclusion of a definition in the Bill. A useful definition made by the Global Animal Law Project and endorsed by the British Veterinary Association states:
“Sentience shall be understood to mean the capacity to have feelings, including pain and pleasure, and implies a level of conscious awareness.”
The Minister said in the other place, and also before us in the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, that it might well be difficult to put the definition into primary legislation because the science is evolving and so potentially it could evolve. We could get round that by placing it in secondary legislation that would be easily updated, so I think that the Government can move forward on that.
I very much welcome the formation of the Animal Sentience Committee, but we need to be clear about its independence and to make sure that it has strong expertise and experience in animal welfare, animal health and veterinary matters. It needs to have some teeth and some power, including power to roam across Government. I am very glad that the committee will be based in DEFRA; although I want it to have a roaming feature, I am more comfortable with it being in the Department that is the custodian for animal health and welfare, which I think makes a lot of sense.

Bill Wiggin: Given my hon. Friend’s expertise and professional experience, what examples does he have from his own life of such a committee being necessary? Why does he therefore want it based in DEFRA?

Neil Hudson: I will come on to some examples of why I think the committee will be important, and how the Government and the Secretary of State respond to it will be useful in formulating policy.
I am glad that the committee will be embedded in DEFRA, but I very much hope that it will be listened to. I draw a contrast with the Trade and Agriculture Commission, which I and many hon. Members on both sides of the House called for, as did the National Farmers Union. We were really pleased to have it scrutinising trade negotiations. It produced a report, but the Government were very slow in responding and were a little partial in their response. I very much hope that the response to the committee from DEFRA, a Department in which I have a lot of faith, will be unlike some of the responses from the Department for International Trade to the Trade and Agriculture Commission.
I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State will respond within three months. There has been a lot of fear that the Bill and the committee might be open to judicial review, but the fact that the Secretary of State needs to respond within three months may go some way towards mitigating that risk. I recognise that there have been concerns, however.

Margaret Ferrier: Does the hon. Member agree that a duty to create and maintain a cross-Whitehall animal sentience strategy would ensure strengthened ministerial responsibility, with greater oversight of the legislation’s impact and scientific opinions or advances?

Neil Hudson: It is very important for the committee to have a brief to look at policy across Departments. Yes, it is important that the Secretary of State responds, but it is equally important that if the committee needs information from other Departments, it should be made available. I thank the hon. Member for that intervention.
I agree with Opposition Members about adverse effects and the wording of clause 2, which relates to whether the Government have
“all due regard to the ways in which the policy might have an adverse effect on the welfare of animals as sentient beings.”
I would like the Bill and the committee not only to include adverse effects, but to look at the positives—the ways in which the policy improves animal health and welfare. I firmly believe that we have the highest animal welfare and animal health standards in the world and that the UK can be a beacon to the rest of the world. If we put it in legislation that we will look at adverse effects on animals, we should also point out, shine a light on and show the rest of the world the positive effects on animal health and welfare. I look forward hopefully to some movement from the Government on that point.

Jane Stevenson: Does my hon. Friend agree that when we left the European Union there was much scaremongering about animal welfare standards falling? Does he agree that the Government have demonstrated that those fears were absolutely unfounded, whether in their work on animal sentience or puppy smuggling or in their support for my Glue Traps (Offences) Bill, which goes into Committee tomorrow and will ban glue traps? Those are really important issues to my constituents.

Neil Hudson: Leaving the European Union certainly means that the UK can put legislation on the statute book to promote animal health and welfare. I would like the Government to go further, because there are things we can do to improve animal health and welfare now that we have left the European Union. The Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, on which I sit, has produced a report, “Moving animals across borders”, that makes very strong recommendations about simple things that can be done.
I welcome the Bill, but I stress to the Government the need to please make animal welfare joined up across Government and across different policy areas. We need to act now to do that. The evidence is there in many of these different areas. Oftentimes, we do not need to consult and put it in the long grass; we can do the things that need to be done now.
With your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will list some things that we could do that the Bill will help us to do. I strongly welcome the pet theft legislation. I have been campaigning for it, and I am pleased that it has come in to the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill. That legislation is very much focused on the high-profile species—the dog—that has sadly been stolen in increasing numbers during the pandemic, and that is getting worse, but it is not just dogs that are being stolen; cats are being stolen every day and as we speak.
I strongly urge the Government to expand the legislation. I know there is a clause to say, “This can be done in the future. We will take evidence”, but cats, horses, ponies, farm animals and livestock are being stolen now. I represent a rural part of the world with a big farming  footprint, and farm animal and livestock theft is a big issue for us. If we are now putting on the statute book that animals are fully sentient beings, and we are taking that into consideration in legislation, I strongly urge the Government that we need to create a huge deterrent to people who commit this abhorrent crime of animal theft.
On domestic public sector food procurement, I urge the Government to close the loophole in the Government buying standards that allows public bodies to buy food products at lower standards on the grounds of cost, if it is cheaper. We need to close that loophole. When I have raised this with Government, they have been very encouraging, saying, “Yes, we will be looking at that.” Certainly our Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee looked at that closely. If we are trying to be a beacon to the rest of the world, we must get our own house in order. I urge the Government quickly to close that Government buying standards loophole.
Opposition Members have talked about international trade. My views on international trade are on the public record. As an outward-looking nation, it is important that we strike trade deals with the rest of the world, but they have to be fair to both partners. Within that, the Trade and Agriculture Commission made a lot of clear recommendations on core standards and the animal welfare side of things, which we need to respect in those trade deals. Sadly, I feel that the Government and the Department for International Trade are being very slow in responding to that.
We need to have core standards in trade deals. We need to put out the message to the rest of the world that if they want to trade with us, they need to bring their standards up to those we find acceptable in this country. We are a beacon. We have high animal health and welfare and we can drive up standards around the world. There must be red-line products that we do not allow in.
I draw a difference with Opposition Members when it comes to hormone-treated beef and chlorine-washed chicken, which the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon), talked about. To a degree, that is not going to happen. The Government have been very clear that that is illegal in this country, and it will remain illegal. It is other products that we need to be thinking about in terms of substandard animal husbandry techniques.
I do not want these trade deals to undermine our fantastic British farmers. This is about not protectionism but standing up for our values. What do we believe in? This Bill shows that we firmly believe that animals are sentient beings and that we have a high regard for animal health and welfare. We need to be doing that with our domestic policy, but we also need to be doing it in our international trade deals, when we strike them.
The trade deal with Australia can be a positive thing, but we must make it work and it must be fair to both partners. As it stands, it is not fair to the United Kingdom. I urge the Government to look at the safeguards they have said they have put in place and to ensure that those safeguards have some teeth. We need the tariff rate quota mechanism that I have been calling for, but we also need an assurance that if the amount of beef—it is largely beef, but it could be lamb—coming into this country is too high, that mechanism can be used to turn down that supply. That is not protectionism; that is standing up for our farmers and our values. I also welcome the Government’s having moved, under pressure,  to put animal welfare chapters into these trade deals, but I firmly believe they are not strong enough. They need to be strengthened.
There is a non-regression clause in the Australian trade deal, but it is not good enough to say, “Well, our standards will not get any worse.” We need to make sure that the standards come up to the standards that we believe are right in the United Kingdom. We are a beacon on this, and we can drive up animal health and welfare standards around the world.
The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee made a series of pragmatic and sensible recommendations on animal health and welfare in our report “Moving animals across borders”. Unfortunately, the Government have been a little slow and—to give a cricketing analogy—a bit straight bat on it. Our recommendations included raising the minimum age of dogs that come into the country to six months, to stamp out the abhorrent crime of puppy smuggling, and banning the import of dogs that have been mutilated by ear cropping and cats that have been declawed. We need to stop that. We need to ban the movement of heavily pregnant dogs, because that fuels the puppy smuggling trade.

Kerry McCarthy: The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech, which supports the argument that clause 2 ought to include positive measures. Would it not be great if we introduced legislation that addressed issues such as cropping dogs’ ears or declawing cats, which would show the world that, through this Bill, we are making progress on such issues?

Neil Hudson: I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. I agree with her. Pointing out where things are having an adverse effect is important, but so is pointing out positive measures. We need to put out the message about where we think things can improve.
I would also like to see—I have pushed this hard in the Chamber and would do so in the Bill Committee—improvements in the health checks on animals coming into this country, including pre-import tests for diseases such as canine brucellosis, babesiosis and leishmaniasis, and the reinstatement of mandatory tick treatment. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Jane Stevenson) talked about some of these things. Now that we have left the European Union, we can reintroduce the mandatory tick treatment for small animals that the Europeans stopped us doing. That might seem a semantic, purely veterinary point, but if we protect animals coming in, they are less likely to bring in diseases that are dangerous to our dog population, some of which have zoonotic potential and could affect people. I would also like to see reinstatement of the rabies titre checks for animals and an increase in the wait time to 12 weeks post rabies vaccination. That would indirectly stop the puppy smuggling trade because it would make it less likely that a fluffy little puppy would be coming through to fuel that market.
I declare an interest again as a veterinary surgeon with an equine background. We need to sort out the equine identification system as well. Hundreds, if not thousands, of horses are illegally exported to the continent of Europe for slaughter, and if we improved the identification of those animals, we could stamp out that abhorrent  practice. The EFRA Committee has made recommendations to Government, and I urge them to respond. Unfortunately some of the responses seem to be a bit “Little Britain”— “Computer says no.” To quote a famous sports brand, I say to the Government, “Just do it.”
Finally, I want to raise again the crisis that is facing the pig sector in this country. If we are talking about animal sentience and valuing high animal health and welfare, we need to highlight that crisis. As the EFRA Committee has said, it is an animal and human welfare crisis. I say that as a vet who spent time in the field during foot and mouth supervising the cull of farm animals on farm. Those animals did not end up in the food chain; they were disposed of. I can tell the House how upsetting that is for farmers, vets, slaughter workers and all concerned. We need to mitigate and avert that. More than 30,000 pigs have been culled on farm, and I know that the Secretary of State and DEFRA have been moving on this, putting pressure on different Departments, for example to increase cold storage. We had the Minister for Safe and Legal Migration before us and we were, frankly, pretty dissatisfied with the responses. We need some joined-up thinking across Government to improve the visa situation so that people can come here to help solve this crisis. I say to Ministers, “Please act now to avert this catastrophe.”
The Bill needs some additions, but the Government have initiated much that is to be welcomed, and it important that that will be on the statute book. The Government have talked the talk, and I urge them to walk the walk. We have a duty of care for these sentient beings; let us put that into practice, and let us do it now.

Tim Farron: It is an honour to follow my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson). He made a comprehensive speech, and, not for the first time, I agreed with the colossal majority of what he said. It is also a huge honour to follow the new hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French), who spoke earlier. I congratulate him on an excellent maiden speech—I know it is customary for us to say that, but it genuinely was an excellent maiden speech. He represents a beautiful part of the country, which he described very well. I had no idea that Kate Bush owed something to his constituency, but that is massively in its favour from my perspective.
The hon. Gentleman also spoke fondly about his predecessor, the late James Brokenshire, who entered the House on the same day as me, and of whom I was always fond. People speak fondly of James because of the way he conducted himself. It is sometimes very easy to say, “I like X”—a member of another party—“because we agree on certain issues”, but it was not that I considered James to be a particularly liberal Tory, although he may have been. That was not the point; it was how he conducted himself in this place, in meetings, and in all that he did. He showed grace and decency, he treated people as he found them, he was utterly honourable and trustworthy, and he was a very competent Minister. We miss him hugely.
We also welcome the hon. Gentleman massively, and I look forward to hearing many more speeches from him. He spoke today with great knowledge of the subject of the debate and with great insight, and, for  what it is worth, I agreed with what he said. I think we may have reached a stage at which the number of Conservative Members who have spoken in favour of the Bill matches the number who have spoken against it, which is good to know .
I am broadly in favour of the Bill, because I think that how we treat animals is a moral indicator of how we are as a culture and as a society. It is a measure of our own humanity, so it is right that we as a country are proud of being a nation of animal lovers. Often the way to get any group of people to behave well is to remind them of how good they are, so it is important that we cling to this self-definition; but it is also important that our legislation follows that, so we will of course support the Bill’s Second Reading.
As a member of the European Union, this country, through article 13 of the Lisbon treaty, enshrined the acknowledgement of animal sentience in legislation. I welcome the fact that—following an unnecessary delay that has been mentioned by a number of Members on both sides of the House—we are now closing that gap. However, I think that the Bill represents a missed opportunity. Members do not need me to remind them of my views on whether it was wise to leave the European Union, but in the case of a number of aspects of our departure, we have opportunities to go one better than how the EU left us. In respect of the legislation at least, we have ensured that in theory we will now be no worse than we were in the EU. In practice, though, as several Members on both sides of the House have pointed out, if we sign trade deals with countries whose animal welfare standards are poorer than ours, we will put ourselves into a position where we are worse than we were before.
The most recent example is our trade deal with Australia. It is important to recognise that the Animal Sentience Committee will have no powers, as far as we can tell, to ensure that those deals—and further deals in the future—do not undermine animal welfare. It is not just a question of the treatment of animals and recognition of their sentience within the borders of this country; it is also a question of how countries that we deal with, in our name, treat those animals. If sovereignty means anything, it means our ability to affect other countries in so far as they relate to us; in the trade deal with Australia, we have failed to do that. This is true on three counts. When it comes to husbandry, I do not need to explain much about how the geography and the nature of farming in Australia differ from ours in the United Kingdom. The vast plains and the ranch-style farming in Australia mean that, to a large degree, there is no husbandry there.

Neil Hudson: I gently disagree with the hon. Member. Although he and I agree on many aspects of what we are discussing, as a vet who has worked on farms in Australia, I think he is making a very sweeping statement about the calibre and nature of farmers across Australia. He is correct that the geography and environment there is very different, but I can tell him from personal experience that many, many farmers out there farm to the highest standards, including when it comes to animal husbandry. To say that Australia has no animal husbandry is, frankly, incorrect.

Tim Farron: I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. He will recognise, particularly having been in Australia, the nature of that husbandry. In Cumbria, the welfare  of livestock is tended to week in, week out. As many of my constituents who have farmed in Australia have informed me directly, the first time that someone in Australia knows that one of their animals might be ill is when they find its sun-bleached bones on the plains the following season. That is a different form of farming. Australians are not instinctively cruel people; that is not the point I am making—[Interruption.] I am sure that Members on both sides of the House understand that. I am saying, however, that lower standards are cheaper, including standards that do not require mandatory closed circuit television coverage in abattoirs, which we have here, or the restrictions that we have here on the transportation of live animals.
Given that we know that poorer welfare standards are cheaper, these trade deals—particularly the one with Australia—offer a financial and economic market advantage to countries with poorer standards than ours that export to us. That not only undermines the morality of the UK’s commitment to high animal welfare, but massively undermines our farmers. Every farmer in Cumbria and the rest of the United Kingdom suffers because the UK Government have chosen to do a deal with a country that we have much in common with, but that does not acknowledge the animal welfare issues there. That is why the Animal Sentience Committee and the recognition of sentience in the Bill, which I support, will not have an effect on all the animals affected by decisions taken in this place. This is an abuse of an opportunity—a missed opportunity—and a waste of our sovereignty, but the Bill is good in so far as it goes, so I welcome it and will vote for it.
I do criticise those Members—not my neighbour, the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border, but some of his colleagues—who have been critical of the Bill not because it does not go far enough, but because it goes as far as it does. They are wrong in that. People have said that the Bill is a threat to farming, but it is no such thing. I speak to farmers throughout my communities and further afield, and they welcome the Bill. They are committed to animal welfare—it is in their DNA.
We should recognise, however, the threat to farmers from trade deals, and from the Government’s dogged insistence on phasing out the basic payment scheme before the arrival of the new environmental land management scheme. Just last month, farmers lost between 5% and 25% of their basic payment, and there is no sign, even slightly over the horizon, of anything to replace it. That will put small British family farms out of business, and there will be a knock-on effect on animal welfare, because part of the reason for our animal welfare culture and why our standards are as high as they are in this country is that they are based on the model and example of the British family farm.
Although I welcome and will support the Bill, and think that there is much to be said for it, I want to rush through some areas where things need to be improved. First, I hope that the fact that the duty to enforce recognition of animal sentience falls on the committee and not primarily the Secretary of State will be changed during the passage of the Bill. That is not right; it gives less responsibility and power to the Secretary of State.
I am also very concerned that clause 3 requires the Secretary of State only to lodge before Parliament a response to reports from the Animal Sentience Committee. That could be a two-line dismissal, and then what  would we do? I guess the Opposition could call an Opposition day debate, and we could ask questions at Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions, but as the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) said, the opportunities for scrutiny are minimised. The task of initiating these things is all put on Opposition Members or Government Back Benchers. Set pieces will not be a part of the process, and it would be entirely possible for the Secretary of State effectively to dismiss any report pretty perfunctorily.
As has been said by a number of colleagues from across the House, we should not treat this matter purely in the negative, although unfortunately at the moment the Bill does that. If we are so proud of our heritage and our high animal welfare standards, why is the committee and its work not about promoting good practice around the country, and in every aspect of our life in so far as it impacts animals, as well as about trying to stamp out bad practice? Again, that feels like a missed opportunity to have gone further and done better. As I have strongly implied, the Animal Sentience Committee should have the power to comment on trade deals. My fear is that, on those matters, it could end up—a bit like the Trade and Agriculture Commission—being a watchdog that may bark occasionally but does not have very much bite. The Government are certainly under no compulsion or obligation to take any notice of it whatsoever.
Many animal welfare charities have expressed concerns to me about the lack of resource for the Animal Sentience Committee. I acknowledge that point, as it goes with our concern about the absence of parliamentary scrutiny and the relegation of these serious issues to a body that is one place removed from this place. The committee chair will be “hired”, for want of a better word, for 20 days a year, and members of the committee for 15. There is no dedicated secretariat—I understand that will be provided by DEFRA staff—and no obvious independent budget. All that adds up to just about ticking the box, and just about copying what the EU did, but without anybody watching over our shoulder. Meanwhile, we are not doing anything. We are meant to be a global trading nation whose footprint and impact is felt around the world. What a missed opportunity to make that impact and do something good when it comes to animal welfare. So this is not three cheers; it is perhaps two, or more likely one, but it is better than nothing, and I will vote for the Bill.

David Evennett: I am grateful for the opportunity to make a short contribution to this important debate. The Secretary of State’s speech was reasonable, moderate and balanced, and I congratulate him on bringing forward the Bill. I appreciate the strong views highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), and I hope he will get the clarity he requires as the Bill proceeds through the House.
We have had a good debate covering wide aspects of the Bill, but I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend and parliamentary neighbour the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French). He made an excellent maiden speech, and we look forward to more of his speeches in  the coming weeks and months. Personally, I look forward to working closely with him in Bexley on behalf of all residents of the borough, and to continuing the work that James, the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare) and I have done to promote our borough as one of the best in the country. I wish my hon. Friend well in his parliamentary career, and congratulate him on being elected to represent Old Bexley and Sidcup.
Britain is, of course, a nation of animal lovers, whether those animals be pets or wild. I have had a number of pets over the years. I got interested in animal welfare because I had a beagle called Skipper, and they were doing tests on beagles to do with smoking—a dreadful situation—in appalling laboratories. Now we do not have that, but there are still areas of animal welfare in which we need to do more. It is therefore good that we have such a Bill and are able to put forward our views.
Many of my constituents across Bexleyheath and Crayford are pet owners and are passionate about animals and animal welfare. Pressure from public opinion has resulted in this measure coming forward and being in the 2019 Conservative party manifesto, and I welcome those things. Britain has a proud history of animal welfare, and has always been a global leader, and I very much hope that, being outside the EU, we can go much, much further. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson) about his expertise as a vet, and I learned a lot listening to his excellent speech. I am sure the Government will continue to improve the lives and welfare of animals. They launched the action plan for animal welfare to ensure that we go further, and I welcome that passionately.
I have read the enlightening debates on the Bill in the other place. I have great interest in the Bill’s many issues, and very much hope to participate further in Committee and as the Bill makes its passage through the House.
The Bill will formally recognise animals as sentient beings—a scientific fact—in domestic law. I welcome the Government’s ongoing commitment to ensuring that we have some of the strongest protections in the world for pets, livestock and wild animals. Following excellent research from the London School of Economics and Political Science—the university that I attended—the Government rightly extended the scope of the Bill so that it recognises that decapods and cephalopods can feel pain. They are therefore covered by this vital legislation.
The scientific community is always conducting research to improve our knowledge and understanding of animal sentience, so the Bill allows the Secretary of State to extend protections to any invertebrate species in the future, should it become apparent that they are sentient beings. That, again, is sensible. The debate has shown the House, and even those who have considerable concerns about aspects of the Bill, at their best; we can go forward, talk about the issues, and advance the interest of animals.
The sentience committee was mentioned. Its members will be appointed by the Secretary of State, and I am sure that it will be made up of experts in the animal field. The committee will not be allowed to change legislation; it will be required to report on whether central Government policy decisions have considered the effect on animal welfare. The findings will, quite rightly, be made public, for transparency. The committee  will not result in legislation through the back door, as recommendations will be only advisory. However, Ministers will be required to update Parliament on the committee’s recommendations and the Government’s response. We will therefore have opportunities to raise and debate issues as the Department and Secretary of State give responses. It is important that we continue to monitor animal welfare issues closely, so I welcome what the Government are doing.
We always like our pets, but we also like to go into the countryside and see a wide variety of animals; it is part of the country scene. Although I am an urban man, having grown up in suburbia and representing a suburban seat, I none the less appreciate the importance of animals for all manner of reasons, and from all manner of experiences in life. Many people are keen on their pets, and never more so than during the covid-19 pandemic, when people were often on their own and relied on their pets for company, love and affection, and to sustain their mental health.
Animals are important across the whole field—that is why the Bill is so important. I strongly recognise how passionate the Ministers are about this subject, as well as those who represent rural constituencies. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Sir Bill Wiggin) is making sedentary comments, as usual. I support the Bill, and congratulate the Government on bringing it forward and implementing a manifesto commitment.

Bill Wiggin: First, let me draw the House’s attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, because I farm. What a delight it was to listen to such a full tribute to my friend James Brokenshire. He was a lovely man and a good friend, and we miss him very much. He has a worthy successor in my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French). What large shoes he has to fill. I am sure that he will do his very best.
Concern for animal welfare is, as everyone has said, something on which we pride ourselves in this country, and on which we already lead globally. The sentience of animals has long been recognised in this country, as is evidenced by the animal welfare legislation passed by Parliaments over the last 200 years. My great-great-grandfather was the MP for somewhere in Birmingham—I think it was Yardley. I asked the Library to look up any speeches he made in 1885, and all it could find was a speech on rabbits and hares. Here I am, 137 years later, still on animal welfare. Nothing has changed because we care about sentience in animals. That is not going to make the Bill necessary. The Bill is completely unnecessary.
Every Member who has spoken in the debate has listed things that they think are more important than the Bill when it comes to animal welfare. They are right. There are so many things on which we could do a better job. Parliamentary time is not an endless opportunity. This is the place for Governments to bring in changes and improvements to the lives we and our constituents lead. We are elected for fixed periods of time, so every day is precious, and every opportunity to improve, simplify or even tweak our legislation is both a privilege and an obligation. That is why unnecessary tokenism and gestures, although they might feel nice, are a missed  opportunity. The Bill is one of the best examples of that—glittering with good intentions, just like the road to hell, but absolutely and completely unnecessary.
First, the Bill creates an open goal for prevention. If someone wants to prevent a planning application, they can refer it to a quango and get a three-month report. There are questions about the proposed committee that will be formed to determine whether the sentience of animals has been considered by Government policy. What happened to the bonfire of quangos? DEFRA has already created a quango in the Environment Act 2021, and now it thinks we need another one. It is not so much a bonfire of quangos as a breeding ground for quangos. While most life forms fall under the scope of the Bill, the taxpayer, that most undervalued of vertebrates, would appear not to do so.
Parliament has always proceeded on the basis that animals are sentient, and has legislated for animal welfare as a result. The definition, or lack thereof, in the Bill is somewhat irrelevant. What animals are considered to be sentient can be changed to suit. All this will do is prevent things. Want to plant more trees, build more houses, improve infrastructure or open a new power station? None of that will be straightforward, just in case we might hurt the feelings of a mouse or a cuttlefish in the process. [Interruption.] Yes, cuttlefish are cephalopods.
The Bill directly contradicts our pledge to level up this nation. My constituency has a moratorium on house building because of phosphate pollution in the River Wye. House building is proven to contribute only a tiny fraction of that pollution, but house builders and aspiring homeowners are being punished. The Bill will be terrible news for those people, as undoubtedly, in the wildest, most natural and beautiful of constituencies, some lovely creature will be discovered in situ. Its sentience will now need to be considered and more unelected bodies will have the power to subvert the building of those much-needed homes. What is conservative about that?
The core aspect of the Bill is to embed consideration of animal welfare into the policy decision-making process, as if we could not manage that by ourselves. That consideration will be made by the Animal Sentience Committee, an opaque body. To the naive, that will appear a noble stance for the Government to take. However, there are serious misgivings about what the committee will set out to achieve. The role of the committee is apparently to scrutinise not the substance of the policy decisions, but the process by which the decisions were reached and whether all due regard has been paid to animal welfare. However, the draft terms of reference suggest that the committee could have a role in scrutinising policies. That would be at odds with the very legislation bringing it into existence.
My question to the Minister, therefore, is who the membership of the committee will report to. Will it be at arm’s length? Most importantly, what safeguards will be in place to ensure that the committee will not act as a vessel by which farming, wildlife management and the rural economy are attacked? If anyone has any doubts that that might happen, they should listen to the contributions of Opposition Members. The way in which the Bill has been greeted should fire off the alarm bells in everybody’s minds. Greater detail is needed on what this committee is truly being set up for and what its  aims are. We already have thousands of quangos in this country, and if we are not careful we will descend into the quagmire of anti-democratic legislation.
This is a crucial time for agriculture and rural life in the UK. As we leave the common agricultural policy and move to the environmental land management scheme, many farmers will be concerned about what the future holds. The Conservative party is a party of the farmer, for the farmer, so let us ensure that future animal policy recognises the calibre of our farmers, their land management practices and the deep care they have for their animals. They have not asked for this Bill, and they do not need it. This Bill is a waste of time and utterly unnecessary—

Tim Farron: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Bill Wiggin: Yes. I am about to go into one, so I will happily give way.

Tim Farron: The hon. Gentleman outlines what he thinks are threats to farmers, but I do not agree that the Bill is a threat to British farmers. However, he alluded to the transition from basic payments to ELMS being a threat, and in that case I think he is right. Would he recommend that the Secretary of State pegs basic payments at their current level and keeps them there until ELMS is available for every farmer?

Bill Wiggin: It is difficult for me to answer that, because I am a member of the ELMS pilot scheme, so I am deeply involved in the formation of ELMS. What I would say is that public money for public goods is the right way forward, with carbon captured in the soil and a corresponding payment made to farmers so that we can balance up the subsidy deficit that British farmers will face compared with their European competitors. At the end of the day I do not believe in subsidy for anything other than agriculture, and we subsidise only in order that our goods are competitive globally—if do not pay our farmers enough, our produce will not compete internationally and our farmers will be at a huge disadvantage.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend alluded to the fact that the committee’s work will be retrospective. Any citizen could suggest to the committee that the Government should change policy in a certain area. The committee would then look into that and make a recommendation to the Minister. That is a real gift to lobbying groups to achieve what they want, and the Government would be under difficulty to withhold it.

Bill Wiggin: As always, my hon. Friend is absolutely right.
The real shame about this legislation is that here we are at Second Reading and every single colleague on both sides of the House has thought of better things for the Government to deal with, whether it is ELMS, as suggested by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), or any of the other suggestions I have heard from Opposition Members. This Bill is a waste of time; it is utterly unnecessary and therefore wrong. We should not pass Bills that state the obvious and that are hostages to fortune, we should not create more quangos, we should not vote for unnecessary legislation —and we certainly should not vote for this Bill.

Tracey Crouch: Fear not, Secretary of State and Minister—the voice of the modern Conservative is bringing up the rear of the debate. May I start by paying tribute to the newest member of the bunny-hugging wing of the Conservative party, my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French), and congratulate him on using the debate to make his maiden speech? Many of our constituents care passionately about animal welfare issues, and my hon. Friend has done an amazing job in representing them today.
As a long-time advocate on animal welfare issues, and in the past sometimes a lone voice on issues such as the badger cull, I have found it encouraging to see more Members joining the Government side of the House speaking out about the wellbeing of animals. I think that that has been helped by the fact that, over the last 10 years, Conservative-led Governments, and particularly this Secretary of State, have delivered enormous progress on these matters. We now have tougher sentences for animal cruelty offences, the world’s strongest ivory trade ban, bans on commercial third-party sales of puppies and kittens and on the use of wild animals in circuses, and much more.
At present, we also have two key pieces of legislation progressing through Parliament—the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill, which we are debating today, and the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill. Both will make good on various manifesto commitments and help to improve the lives of millions of animals. However, it would be remiss of me not to take this opportunity to press for the immediate introduction of new legislation to ban the import of horrific hunting trophies—I do not think that is more important than this debate, but I do think it is equally important.
For this debate, I read through House of Lords Hansard, and I am enormously proud of Lords Benyon and Goldsmith, previously of this parish, who were often comrades on similar matters in previous Parliaments. They have done a phenomenal job in introducing this legislation and amending it where needed.
One such amendment related to decapod crustaceans and cephalopods. I warmly welcome the inclusion of those species within the scope of the Bill and pay tribute to the numerous charities and campaigners, such as Crustacean Compassion, who worked so hard to have this included in the Bill. I am pleased that the Government listened; I thank the Secretary of State and Ministers, who took notice of what was said and acted on the overwhelming scientific evidence proving that those species can feel pain. The UK will join just a handful of countries in the world, including Australia and Switzerland, in recognising decapod crustaceans as sentient beings and will introduce steps to further improve their welfare, such as pre-slaughter stunning and a ban on ice storage while alive.
Contrary to some on the Government side of the House, I welcome the establishment of an Animal Sentience Committee and am encouraged that it will work to consider the ways in which policy across Government can have an impact on animal welfare. I hope Government Departments will work effectively with the committee, including those responsible for policy areas less obviously associated with animals and animal welfare. I also  welcome the terms of reference and the fact that the committee may consider how Ministers have had a positive effect on animals as sentient beings in the policy- making process.
However, I fear the ASC may lack the operational freedom to look at different areas of policy that could be improved further; as it stands, the central focus on adverse effects suggests a minimal effort at reducing potential harms to animals. I would welcome reassurance that the committee will be able to suggest positive and proactive steps to improve animal wellbeing, as advocated by the British Veterinary Association. A dedicated budget and the inclusion of appropriate veterinary and animal welfare expertise would remove the burden on civil servants, ensure that Ministers were provided with independent, scientifically backed recommendations and help to ensure that the UK remains at the forefront of best practice in animal welfare legislation.
While I welcome the fact that it will continue to be up to Ministers to assess how certain legislation may impact animal welfare and to weigh up the costs and benefits in relation to other important considerations such as social, environmental and economic matters, I do not believe it is unreasonable that the committee be able to consider other ways in which Ministers can improve regulation further. We have previously expressed a desire for the UK to go further than any other country on animal welfare legislation, improving on article 13 of the Lisbon treaty, which still allows for cultural activities that cause unimaginable animal suffering. I hope we do not lose sight of that commitment.
There is much more to be done, ranging from reviewing the use of snares and glue traps—my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Jane Stevenson) has a ten-minute rule Bill on that going into Committee tomorrow—to looking again at scents in trail hunting, considering the welfare of hens, protecting seals from intentional disturbance and coming good on ending the badger cull. There is more that we can do, but I welcome the Bill we are discussing today.
Finally, I repeat my thanks to Ministers and officials in DEFRA who have worked on this important Bill, which ensures that there is no loss of legal protections for animals following our departure from the European Union. I look forward to supporting this Bill wholeheartedly and following the rest of its progress through Parliament.

Ruth Jones: This is an important Bill, and I thank all hon. Members who have spoken in this Second Reading debate. There have been some thoughtful and engaging contributions—some very interesting ones—and I think we saw a House willing to work together to deliver a Bill that is fit for purpose.
It was fascinating to hear from the Government’s Back Benchers, in particular from the hon. Members for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) and for North Herefordshire (Sir Bill Wiggin), and I look forward to some great debates with them on the Bill Committee. It is a shame we are not dividing today, because I am sure we would have had some rebels voting with us this evening.
I particularly want to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) for his specific and forensic action on the  wording and for his helpful comments throughout the speech he made. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) for her action to provide legislation for the Government in the past, and particularly for her amendment to the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill in 2017.
I of course welcome the new hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French) to his place, and I thank him for his maiden speech. As one by-election winner to another who has succeeded after the sad passing of their predecessor, I understand the difficulty he has felt, but I pay tribute to him for his moving and thoughtful speech today. I welcome him to this place, and I look forward to working with him in the future.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy). I share her love of cats, and I will now be seeking out the site she mentioned on Twitter. More seriously, her wish to see the Bill strengthened and improved as it progresses is very welcome. Obviously, the expertise as a vet of the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson) is very welcome, especially on this Bill, and I welcome the input from the right hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Sir David Evennett) and the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch).
As the House heard from the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon)—my new boss, whom I welcome to the shadow DEFRA team—the Opposition welcome this Bill, but, as ever, we want it to go further, be stronger and do more. Labour is the party of animal welfare, and a special mention again goes to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport for all his work on these issues when he was in the shadow Cabinet. From bringing forward the landmark Hunting Act 2004 to protecting the treatment of domestic animals under the Animal Welfare Act, Labour has always placed the welfare of animals high on the policy agenda.
There is growing consensus among scientists and policy makers that animals are sentient beings capable of feeling emotions and experiencing pain. A UK parliamentary petition run by the Better Deal for Animals campaign calling for an animal sentience law recently received over 100,000 signatures, and it was debated in this place on 16 March 2020—it seems like another lifetime ago.
Colleagues who thought that unravelling our membership of the European Union would be sorted by putting a border down the Irish sea will be surprised that we are here because of our decision to leave the European Union. Our departure means that this country no longer has legislation that recognises animals as sentient beings. That is why the Opposition welcome the Bill and the opportunity to strengthen our country’s approach to animal welfare that it provides.
As my noble Friend Baroness Hayman said in the other place:
“The formal legal recognition of animal sentience sends a clear message that we are committed as a country to protecting the welfare of animals, but for this to be meaningful, any commitment on paper must be followed up in practice.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 June 2021; Vol. 812, c. 1942.]
The noble Baroness is correct, as ever, and that is exactly where we will pick up. Colleagues in the other place have continued to raise concerns about the current  state and reach of this Bill. The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), whom I welcome to her first Bill in her new position, needs to be very clear about who will sit on the Animal Sentience Committee, how it will be funded, what engagement there will be with the devolved Administrations and how we can be sure that Ministers abide by the reports that come from this independent committee. The Secretary of State said in his opening remarks that there will be “expertise and experience” on this committee. Can she outline exactly how this will be brought together?
We have the chance to make this Bill fit for purpose now and our responsibilities as Members of this House require us to do the best by our constituents, but we also have a responsibility to our natural world, our wildlife and animals. To honour that responsibility, we must be ever vigilant. That is why this Bill is so important: it provides us with another opportunity to look at our approach to animal welfare and what we can do to keep our animals safe.
That is also why we must take this Bill seriously, and we must work together to strengthen it and show that, on some key issues, this House can unite and deliver real change. When this Bill moves to Committee, as it will do when it passes Second Reading today, I hope to work constructively with the Minister, the hon. Members for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) and for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) and others to deliver a Bill that is really fit for purpose.
A number of colleagues have touched on the views of some of the important stakeholders out there in the real world, and I want to do so, too. First, I want to thank all those campaigners and organisations that have been in touch and provided such helpful briefings. The Better Deal for Animals coalition has expressed its support for the Bill, but it says:
“Whilst we welcome the Bill in its current form, we acknowledge that the Bill could be further improved by the addition of a new duty to require ministers to proactively and strategically engage with sentience issues, including through a requirement for the government to maintain a cross-Whitehall Animal Sentience Strategy.”
The Opposition agree.
The Countryside Alliance is clear that it fully supports legal recognition of the sentience of animals, as we do. The British Veterinary Association is clear that the committee must include appropriate veterinary and animal welfare expertise and that this House must pass legislation that enshrines animal sentience in UK law; we agree on those points, too.
We will ask Ministers to work with us to strengthen the Bill and tackle the loopholes used by those who go hunting every Boxing day and the outsourcing of animal cruelty triggered by the trade deals negotiated by this Government. Baroness Hayman rightly pushed for
“guarantees that the Government will consult on membership; that there will be an open, transparent recruitment process; that wide-ranging expertise will be ensured; and that the committee will have genuine independence and not be incorporated as a sub-committee of the Animal Welfare Committee, as we believe this could potentially damage its ability to hold the Government to account.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 June 2021; Vol. 812, c. 1943.]
I agree, and I want the Minister to provide that reassurance.
The Bill is about an issue that we all take seriously and want to address. The Opposition will approach the Bill in a constructive manner that improves it and makes it fit for purpose. Our natural environment and animals deserve nothing less, and that is what Labour will deliver in Committee, on Report and back in the other place until the Bill reaches Her Majesty’s desk. I look forward to working with Members on this important Bill in Committee; I hope that the Government will listen to our reasoned amendments to strengthen and improve this long-awaited Bill.

Jo Churchill: I thank all hon. Members for their contributions to our lively and wide-ranging debate. I particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French) for his excellent maiden speech; I am delighted to have his support. As he said, animal welfare is important to his and all our constituents.
I know that my hon. Friends the Members for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) and for North Herefordshire (Sir Bill Wiggin) are all upholders of animal welfare who care for their own animals. Indeed, I often look fondly at Christmas cards from my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire; they are signed by him and his wife but often bear a picture of him with a cow from his herd, which is quite interesting.
I am pleased to associate myself with the comments about our former colleague the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, with whom I worked to try to ensure that more cancer nurse specialists are there when people need them. We miss his wise counsel, but we welcome wholeheartedly our new hon. Friend.
The Bill is the latest in a series of steps that the Government are taking to develop and strengthen animal welfare protections. As we have heard from many hon. Members, it builds on the UK’s proud tradition of protecting pets, livestock and wildlife. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State laid out, our nation has a long and proud history in the area, and our action plan for animal welfare is making positive progress.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) pointed out, the Bill has been well discussed in the other place. She also alluded to other Bills. The Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021 came into force in June, increasing the maximum prison sentence for animal cruelty, and has been welcomed by hon. Members. The Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill is currently going through the House. We are supporting private Members’ Bills: the Animals (Penalty Notices) Bill and the Glue Traps (Offences) Bill, which we will debate in Committee tomorrow. We introduced a Government amendment, which I know many right hon. and hon. Members have welcomed, to tackle illegal hare coursing in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill. We are progressing a range of other commitments in the action plan, including on cat microchipping, and are moving forward on many other things.
Members asked many questions; I aim to answer them all, but if I do not, my door is always open. My hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon said that we had not yet had a conversation; I am keen to work to  deliver good legislation not only for the countryside that I represent but for all our constituents. Our primary job is to make sure we get it right.
I was asked how sentience is defined in the Bill. Our scientific understanding of sentience has come a long way in recent years, but it is well defined and continues to evolve. Baroness Hayman’s work included the reviewing of 300 pieces of research to bring forward the definition of decapods and cephalopods. The situation will carry on evolving, so it would seem to be counter-intuitive to have a fixed definition, because the definition itself is not fixed. We therefore do not deem it necessary to define sentience for the work going forward. We can all recognise that animals are sentient and their welfare should be considered in any decisions we make.
As we have said, the public feel strongly about this issue, which is why we have introduced this legislation. I welcome the comments from my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson) who, with this vast experience and strong expertise, highlighted the point that the committee will need to cover those areas of expertise. It is for that reason that we are not over-prescriptive. Indeed, as I said to the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock), somebody in one of the devolved nations could have the key expertise and we should look throughout the United Kingdom to ensure we have the right people on the committee to draw on.
My hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border also mentioned constituents who lose dogs and horses. I agree that there are other things we should be doing in the animal space, but we are moving forward with them. The Bill is tightly drafted for a distinct reason, which is why it merely has simple clauses to make sure we get it right.
I thank the EFRA Committee for all its work to get the Bill into a much better place. I notice that my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) is now in his place.

Neil Parish: I apologise to the House for not being here for the debate; I have been chairing the EFRA Committee. The advisory committee will need members with good practical animal welfare experience and an independent chair. It will also need to be given the proper resources and we will need more transparency in respect of the process of advising the Government. I really hope we can have a strong animal welfare process that is actually workable.

Jo Churchill: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and for the letter that he recently wrote to me. We intend to do exactly that and I shall come to that in a moment.
The Bill delivers on our manifesto commitment and provides legal recognition that animals are sentient beings. As I have said, it is a tight, short Bill that establishes an animal sentience committee to consider how individual central Government policies and decision making take account of animal welfare. The Bill contains provisions to ensure that Ministers respond to Parliament in respect of reports published by the animal sentience committee. It establishes that committee and empowers it to scrutinise Minister’s policy formation and implementation decisions, with a view to publishing  reports containing its views on whether Ministers have paid all due regard to animals’ welfare needs as sentient beings.
The Bill places a duty on Ministers to respond to the reports by means of a written statement to Parliament within three months’ sitting time and confirms that non-human vertebrates such as dogs, birds, decapod crustaceans and cephalopod molluscs and invertebrates such as lobsters and octopuses are sentient—that is, capable of experiencing pain or suffering. Together, these measures constitute a targeted, timely and proportionate accountability mechanism, as so aptly described by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Sir David Evennett).
The hon. Members for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) and for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon) asked why the Bill talks only of adverse effects. It is because the Animal Sentience Committee’s role will be to encourage policy decision makers to think about the positive improvements they could make to animal welfare, rather than just minimising adverse effects. Meeting the welfare needs of animals means avoiding those negative impacts, as well as providing for positive experiences. The reference to an adverse effect allows the committee to consider whether a policy might restrict an animal’s positive experience.
I was asked whether the Animal Sentience Committee will produce an animal welfare strategy, and the answer is no. The Government’s current and future work on animal welfare and conservation is set out clearly in the action plan for animal welfare, and the role of the Animal Sentience Committee is not to devise future policy or strategy.
I was asked whether the committee could produce an annual report. That task is not established by the Bill, although that would not be necessary. There is nothing to prevent the committee from assessing improvements annually, if that fulfils its legislative purposes, or from issuing a report should it so wish.

Luke Pollard: The Minister slightly misunderstands the point. It is not that Members want the Animal Sentience Committee to produce an annual report but that we want the Secretary of State to have an annual parliamentary moment when the findings of those reports can be discussed and debated on the Floor of the House. Rather than being buried in a report in the House of Commons Library, will it be debated by parliamentarians?

Jo Churchill: I thank the hon. Gentleman, but I gently point out that there are plenty of other devices for ensuring plenty of parliamentary time. I am sure that we will unpick that in Committee.
Ministers will remain responsible for balancing animal welfare against other important matters of public interest. We are and will remain fully accountable to Parliament for that. My hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon spent some time asking whether the Bill increases the risk of judicial review, and it has been carefully considered and worded to ensure there are only two areas in which we could instigate grounds for judicial review if Ministers fail to fulfil them: by not appointing a committee or by not bringing forward a report in a timely fashion.
I was also asked how the Animal Sentience Committee differs from the Animal Welfare Committee. The latter offers substantive expert advice, whereas the former is a scrutinising body—that is the essential difference. The Animal Sentience Committee is there to give another line of evidence and to help Ministers make decisions, but policy decisions are and will remain a matter for Ministers, for which they are accountable to this House.
Ministers are under no legal obligation to follow the committee’s recommendations. However, there is no point in having a committee that brings forward evidence unless we take it seriously. As I say, it will be balanced in the round to make sure competing interests such as the rural economy or a particular enjoyment, angling or whatever—all those things that are good for people’s mental wellbeing—are considered when we make our decisions.
The key point about the terms of reference is that the Animal Sentience Committee will be classified as an expert committee. It will be funded from within DEFRA’s existing budget and supported by a small secretariat. This will not run and run and be an unsupported Government quango, as suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire. The Bill is drafted to keep sentience at the forefront of policy making and implementation, in line with its statutory functions.
Wide-ranging points were made by colleagues, which flowed into medical research and respect for people’s religious needs. The Bill is tight, and the reason it is a small, tight Bill is that it is important that we are aware that it does not change existing legislation. The committee does not make value judgments.
Hon. Members asked about the inclusion of decapod crustaceans, crabs, lobsters, molluscs, octopus and squid. I want to be absolutely clear about the reasoning behind the effects of that decision. At every point, it is about respecting and recognising animal sentience, and being scientifically led.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I sense the Minister is coming to a conclusion, but she has not answered one of my questions about the composition of the committee. Will she give an assurance that it will take into account rural and agricultural interests?

Jo Churchill: As I represent the constituency that I do, my hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that I will give him that assurance. The Opposition made the point that breadth of expertise is extremely important in order to have confidence in this Committee.

Emma Hardy: Will the Minister give way?

Jo Churchill: If the hon. Lady will bear with me, I want to push on as the Chamber is full and it is only fair that I conclude, but I will take her intervention in a second.
It was originally thought that only vertebrates could feel pain, but decapods and cephalopods are invertebrates with complex nervous systems, and I welcome their inclusion. In 2020, DEFRA commissioned the external review of the available scientific evidence, and evaluated the findings of over 300 pieces of peer-reviewed evidence. We carefully considered the recommendations, as we  added that measure to the Bill. I reassure hon. Members that the Bill does not and will not change any existing legislation, or place any additional burdens on any part of industry or individuals.

Emma Hardy: The Minister is always kind at taking interventions. Before she concludes, can she comment on the use of testing on primates that was raised by the SNP spokesperson?

Jo Churchill: With respect, as the Chamber is full, I would be happy to meet the hon. Lady and talk further about that. It was largely to do with medical testing and military work with animals, and I would be happy to talk to her about medical animal testing, to which it is vital that we have a proportionate approach.
In summary, the Bill offers a proportionate and evidence-led recognition of animal sentience in UK law. There is over whelming public demand for sentience legislation. We committed to introduce it in our manifesto, and similar pledges were made by parties represented on the Opposition Benches. I look forward to working with hon. Members across the House to deliver on our promises, and I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [Lords] (Programme)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [Lords]:
Committal
(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
Proceedings in Public Bill Committee
(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 10 February 2022.
(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
Consideration and Third Reading
(4) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.
Other proceedings
(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Gareth Johnson.)
Question agreed to.

Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [Lords] (Money)

Queen’s recommendation signified.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure incurred under the Act by the Secretary of State.—(Gareth Johnson.)
Question agreed to.

Charities Bill [Lords] (Money)

Queen’s recommendation signified.
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Charities Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.—(Gareth Johnson.)

House of Commons Commission

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That Nickie Aiken be appointed to the House of Commons Commission in pursuance of section 1(2)(d) of the House of Commons (Administration) Act 1978, as amended.—(Gareth Johnson.)

Thangam Debbonaire: I will not detain the House for long. It is clear that there is an interest in the recognition of Somaliland, something I entirely support as a representative of many constituents of Somali origin. I just wish to ask the Leader of the House a couple of administrative questions.
First, I welcome the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) to the House of Commons Commission. It is a great honour to serve with her on the Commission. We make many important decisions about the nature of this House, its operations and its staffing.
I have tried really hard to do the adding up this afternoon. It may be that I have missed something, but it appears to me that there has been a vacancy on the Commission for some time. Will the Leader of the House comment on why now is the appropriate time for that appointment? I am also aware that the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster has the great honour of being the representative for Westminster. We will shortly be discussing the restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster, which is in her constituency. Is the right hon. Gentleman able to advise me and other members of the Commission on whether any issues might arise from that?
I reiterate, overall, my welcome to the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster to the Commission and I look forward to working with her, but I would be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman were able to answer those questions.

Pete Wishart: I will try to be brief, Madam Deputy Speaker. My speaking notes only go for about 50 minutes or so, but I will try to rattle through them as quickly as possible so we can get to the debate secured by the right hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson).
I would like to reiterate some of the questions put by the shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire). I am interested to know why the position has gone unfilled for such a period of time. I would also like to ask why it is going to a Conservative Member. Obviously, I understand the need for balance across the Commission. I am sure that the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) will be an assiduous and diligent member of the Commission, and we all look forward very much to working with her, but she is replacing a Liberal Democrat, in the form of Mr Tom Brake, who unfortunately lost his seat at the last general election. Is it the case that the position could be filled from another party across the House?
I like the suggestion that we try to make the House of Commons Commission as accessible as possible to Members. Maybe we could all be included in deciding who should be on the Commission. What about an election for another member of the House of Commons  Commission? Let us think creatively about how we construct some of our great parliamentary institutions, such as the Commission. I think Members across the Chamber would be delighted to have an election to see who should take this very important place on the House of Commission, and they would have the confidence of everybody in this House. It would not be based on party political allegiance, but involve everybody in a democratic debate about who we want to represent the House on the Commission to do the very important work that we all know the Commission devotes itself to. That would be a diligent and sincere way of making sure this House is looked after.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am grateful for the support of the shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire), and the representative of the SNP, the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart). We all work very closely together on the Commission. Likewise, I do not want to detain the House unduly, but I am delighted to be proposing to appoint my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) to the House of Commons Commission.
The Commission, as hon. Members will know, is responsible for the administration of the services of the House of Commons, including the maintenance of the Palace of Westminster and the rest of the parliamentary estate. The House of Commons (Administration) Act 1978, as amended, provides for four Members of the House of Commons to be appointed by the House as members of the Commission, in addition to Mr Speaker, the Leader of the House, a Member appointed by the Leader of the Opposition and four external members. This appointment would fill the fourth vacant slot for a Member to be appointed by the House.
The hon. Member for Bristol West asks why the position has been vacant for so long. It has been a matter under discussion in the normal way between various parties to see whether it would be beneficial. The particular qualities of my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster make this a very suitable appointment to make at the moment, not least because her constituency covers the parliamentary estate. Before her election she served as a councillor for, and indeed was leader of, Westminster City Council. Her executive experience at the council, including managing the refurbishment of City Hall—something we should bear in mind as we come to restoration and renewal— will prove invaluable to the Commission, which will have to address important issues of that kind, involving some discussions with Westminster City Council. Maintaining good relations at the highest level with Westminster City Council is certainly of importance to us.
The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) asked, “Why not a Liberal Democrat?”, which is always a popular question in this House. I might say, “What is a Liberal Democrat? Are there Liberal Democrats any more?” I notice that this debate is not attended by a Liberal Democrat. The Liberal Democrats used to be the third party in this House. We got used to that, and it took us a bit of time to recognise that the hon. Gentleman’s party is now the third party, so it is accorded the courtesies that used to be accorded to the Liberal Democrats, and that is democracy.
It is important to note that the Government will not have a majority on the Commission, exactly as was recommended by the Governance Committee, which I served on, actually, under the distinguished chairmanship of Jack Straw. We are maintaining the principle that the Government do not have a majority, but if the new member had not been a Government Member, we would have had 4:2 against the Government, which does not seem appropriate in view of the current set-up of the House of Commons.
There is much for the House of Commons Commission to discuss. I am grateful for the support that we have received. I am particularly grateful that the House is, I hope, going to approve the appointment of my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster, who I think will prove a most distinguished member of the Commission. I therefore commend the motion to the House.
Question put and agreed to.

Business without Debate

Delegated Legislation

Eleanor Laing: With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 7, 8 and 9 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Public Health

That the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Self-Isolation) (England) (Amendment) (No. 5) Regulations 2021 (SI, 2021, No. 1382), dated 8 December 2021, a copy of which was laid before this House on 8 December 2021, be approved.
That the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Entry to Venues and Events) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021 (SI, 2021, No. 1435), dated 14 December 2021, a copy of which was laid before this House on 15 December 2021, be approved.

Sanctions

That the Burundi (Sanctions) Regulations 2021 (SI, 2021, No. 1404), dated 8 December 2021, a copy of which was laid before this House on 13 December 2021, be approved.—(Gareth Johnson.)
Question agreed to.

UK Government Recognition of Somaliland

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Gareth Johnson.)

Gavin Williamson: I am very grateful for the privilege of being able to bring this Adjournment debate to the House today.
In 1960, Somaliland emerged independent from the British empire after many years as the British Somaliland protectorate. For five days it was independent, before it took the step to merge with what was then the Trust Territory of Somaliland, historically Italian, to form a union. Both nations entered that union with optimism—a sense and a view of creating a pan-Somalia where all Somalis would be able to come together. The hope, for so many of those in Somaliland, was that this would be a union of equals.
Sadly, over the following 30 years, those hopes and aspirations for what might have been were not fulfilled. Instead, as the years progressed, the situation got worse, with military dictatorships and, tragically, people from the north of Somalia in historically British Somaliland being discriminated against. What started to emerge was attacks on civilians. There were mass killings of tens of thousands of Somali civilians. It was one of the few conflicts where fighter jets took off from cities in one area in order to bomb the cities that they had taken off from, indiscriminately killing thousands of civilians.

Rushanara Ali: My constituency has a very large population from Somaliland, whose families suffered, as the right hon. Gentleman has described, in that conflict. Last year, Somaliland celebrated 30 years since the declaration of independence. It has built up its own independent Government, its own currency and democratic elections. It has shown the capability to establish a state. Is it not time that the UK Government formally recognise its right to self-determination and its need to be an independent state?

Gavin Williamson: The hon. Lady raises a very important point. The key reason for this debate is to discuss the fact that Somaliland has developed so much. In those years of conflict—where so many Somalilanders had their lives under threat, and so many hundreds of thousands were displaced, both internally within Somaliland and externally—that dream and that vision of creating their own homeland once again and re-establishing those old territorial borders burned bright, and that is what they were able to achieve in 1991.

Stephen Doughty: I draw the House’s attention to my interest as one of the vice-chairs of the all-party parliamentary group on Somaliland. It has been a privilege to work with the right hon. Gentleman on these issues. Will he also pay tribute to my predecessor, Alun Michael, and the many members of the Somalilander community in Cardiff and across the UK for exposing those atrocities at the time, including in this House and elsewhere, and explaining what had gone on to the world? Will he commend them on what they did at that time?

Gavin Williamson: I pay tribute to the hon. Member’s predecessor and the many people who live in his constituency. In his constituency is a very established Somaliland community that has been there probably far longer than he or I have been on this earth. This country has deep links with Somaliland that go back not just many decades, but a century and more, with many Somalilanders calling Britain their home, as well as Somaliland itself.

Thomas Tugendhat: I am delighted that my right hon. Friend has secured this important debate. Many of us have been supporting Somaliland as an independent state, and we very much welcome the fact that he is here. On that point, he will know no doubt that many of Her Majesty’s naval ships for 100 or more years have had lascars from Somaliland—stokers and others—who built the first mosques in this country. Does he not agree that recognising the Somalilanders here in the UK is also about recognising our own past and our own future together as investors in a new Africa? It would demonstrate that independent states that govern themselves well in democracies can succeed, and we can partner with them.

Gavin Williamson: My hon. Friend the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee is absolutely right. By taking the brave step to recognise Somaliland, we would not just be opening up opportunities for Somaliland itself, but opportunities for British investors and British business to go there and work, very much creating the gateway to the whole of the horn of Africa.

Andrew Mitchell: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who has brought this most important subject to the Floor of the House. I visited Hargeisa when I was Secretary of State for International Development, and we spent quite a lot of time on exactly the issues that he and my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee have just raised. There is an enormous degree of normalcy there. The democratic structures, when they have elections, have held in extraordinarily difficult circumstances. There is proper governance. I have travelled on a bus in Hargeisa that was a result of British investment. The case that my right hon. Friend is making about Somaliland becoming an independent state is one where the Foreign Office normally takes the view that it does not want to lead it, but it would support it. Is he aware that the African Union is at least passively acquiescent in that view, if not actively supportive?

Gavin Williamson: On both areas that my right hon. Friend raises, he is absolutely right. One flies into Hargeisa airport, and it is a safe place to visit. One can get a bus to the centre of Hargeisa, as he did. When I visited, I must confess I did not get a bus, but I will endeavour to do so the next time I visit. He is equally right that this is an opportunity. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office so often wants to be led on these issues, but there is sometimes a moment for Britain to lead, as against to be led.

Alec Shelbrooke: My right hon. Friend makes an important point about leading the world. Throughout the world, where western  nations do not get involved, China does, and recently we have had many discussions about China’s influence. Does he therefore agree that when we look at development taking place in Somaliland, we can see that it is in our strategic interests and that of western countries not just to see what happens but to take an active, leading role and not allow that vacuum to be filled with those who, perhaps, we have difficulties with?

Gavin Williamson: My right hon. Friend is so correct. If we look to Djibouti, to the north of Somaliland, we see the Chinese investment that is going in. Where there is a vacuum, others do step in. If this country showed the leadership that it can by recognising Somaliland, that would show the Somaliland Government the value that we put on their friendship and partnership.

Robert Buckland: I commend my right hon. Friend for securing the debate. I am honoured to represent a Somaliland community in Swindon. Building on the points made by right hon. and hon. Members about Somaliland’s strategic importance, and in particular its proximity to international shipping lanes, we all know that with British leadership under our good friend the noble Lord Hague, we led the way in dealing with piracy emanating from the horn of Africa. Is this not another opportunity for Britain to show leadership and recognise stable government in a region that is in pitifully short supply of such a quality?

Gavin Williamson: My right hon. and learned Friend is accurate in his assessment. Even though we are not yet in a position of recognising Somaliland, we already have that level of co-operation with Somalilanders. When I visited Somaliland as Defence Secretary, I saw at first hand the co-operation that British forces already had with Somaliland in protecting its coastal waters—and by doing so, keeping them safe for the international community.

Kim Johnson: I thank the right hon. Member for securing this important debate and commend the Government on the support they have been providing to the Administration in Somaliland. Liverpool Riverside has a long-established Somali community and Somalilanders. Will he join me in calling for the UK Government to support a binding referendum within two years to allow Somalilanders to express their democratic will, guaranteed by the international community?

Gavin Williamson: I am not sure whether you are an expert on Somaliland affairs, Madam Deputy Speaker, but this is the opportunity for you to brush up on them. The hon. Lady makes an important point, but there has already been a referendum in Somaliland, and it was absolutely clear about the wishes of the Somaliland people: they want to see recognition, to be independent and to have that independent state. However, if that is a hurdle to establishing international recognition for Somaliland, the Somaliland Government may wish to look at that.

Barry Gardiner: The right hon. Gentleman has been extremely fortunate not only in the House allowing him a lot of time to debate this important  topic but in the number of hon. Members in their places supporting him and the cause of Somaliland. Wembley has a huge Somaliland community of expatriates who have said to me that, in all likelihood, a new Somaliland would desperately want to join the Commonwealth. Does he agree with them?

Gavin Williamson: From my visit to Somaliland and my discussions with so many Somalilanders in the UK, I have a real sense of kinship between Somaliland, Britain and other Commonwealth nations. I think that Somaliland would very much want to join the Commonwealth, and I hope that the Commonwealth would welcome them with open arms.

Clive Betts: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. I have the privilege of chairing the all-party group on Somaliland, and we have a large Somaliland community in Sheffield. The way he described the formation of what is currently legally Somalia was really interesting. Immediately on gaining independence, Somaliland was an independent country, and it voluntarily chose to enter into a union. The concerns about changing post-colonial boundaries do not apply in the case of an independent Somaliland; post-colonial boundaries, it was an independent country. The idea that Mogadishu now has any remit in Somaliland is a piece of nonsense, and it is time the Government recognised that.

Gavin Williamson: I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman. The boundaries being proposed are exactly the same as those that were agreed between Britain, Italy, and Ethiopia, and with the French in numerous treaties prior to that. Somaliland is not asking for a change to the boundaries, as they are very much what was there in 1960. There are precedents when it comes to unwinding acts of union and confederacies. One need only look to the other side of Africa, at the confederation between Senegal and Gambia, which was unwound in the late 1980s. This is not unprecedented. We are suggesting going back and recognising what were well-established international boundaries that we ourselves recognised and drew up.

Stuart Anderson: I thank my right hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for giving way. The Defence Committee has just produced a report on the Navy and the importance of the sea in defence, and he mentioned his visits as Secretary of State for Defence. Does he agree that it is vital that we recognise Somaliland, given the strategic importance of the location in terms of defence?

Gavin Williamson: My hon. Friend is accurate in pinpointing the strategic importance of Somaliland. That is one of many reasons why it is so vital that not just Britain, but the United States and other NATO members lead the way in recognising Somaliland—not just because of the many brilliant things that have been done there, but because of the country’s strategic importance. The question is how we reinforce and support that Government.

John Spellar: If I may pursue that point, is it not desirable for a stable state in a region that is becoming increasingly unstable to achieve that level  of recognition? We talk a lot about supply chain vulnerability; this is one of the most vulnerable places we have found. Even one ship blocking the Suez canal caused ripples right the way throughout industry. We should also recognise the importance of enabling communities here and in Somaliland to move freely, have passports that are recognised, conclude international agreements, and unleash the country’s energy. Having a properly administered state in the region would enable those communities to do those things. Is it not time that we grasped the nettle and recognised Somaliland?

Gavin Williamson: There is a level of consensus bubbling up that is not always typical of debates in this House. It is incredibly important to demonstrate the will and feeling of the House on this important issue. The right hon. Gentleman raises an important point about supply chains. DP World already invests in the port of Berbera, and the welcome investment from British International Investment—the old Commonwealth Development Corporation—amounts to hundreds of millions of pounds. The Government recognise the importance of Somaliland, and we are willing to invest hundreds of millions of pounds there, because we realise that it opens up so much of the horn of Africa to British goods and investment. However, we still do not recognise the state of Somaliland, which is a real tragedy. It is so sad to see that so many Somalilanders have difficulty travelling to Somaliland. They cannot fly direct from the UK, but have to go via either Addis Ababa or Dubai. By taking the step of recognising Somaliland, we can make so many British citizens’ lives easier.

Alun Cairns: I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for securing this important debate; the attendance shows the strength of feeling across the House. Does he agree that recognition can take several forms, and that the Government could take interim steps to show willing, and to demonstrate progress towards the formal recognition that we all want? That could include the Department for International Trade—or the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, which has responsibilities to DIT—channelling food and aid through Somaliland. That way, Somaliland will not be at the wrong end of the supply chain; it often ends up with a raw deal.

Gavin Williamson: That is absolutely correct. For so long, international development aid has been channelled through the Federal Republic of Somalia and the Government in Mogadishu, which sadly means that people in Somaliland have often not had the assistance that this Government expected them to get. A perfect example of that is vaccines. A large supply of vaccines was sent to the people of Somaliland, but it was channelled through the Government in Mogadishu. By the time it arrived in Somaliland, sadly, there was only a few days left in which to dispense most of the vaccines.

Bob Stewart: I thank my right hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene. I do not have any Somalis in my constituency, but I have a great love for the country because my ayah came from Somaliland when we lived in Aden. I remind the House that the Aden Protectorate and the Somaliland Protectorate were very closely linked; I remember my father flying over to Somaliland as part of the Aden Protectorate  Levies when there was that close link. The people of Somaliland have a real affection for this country. That goes back a long time, and it would be absolutely right of our Government to encourage, support and allow Somaliland to be a real nation.

Gavin Williamson: We have seen the people of Somaliland pay a price for the defence of this nation in both the first and second world war. If people go to Somaliland, they can see the Commonwealth war grave cemetery. So many Somalilanders gave their life in defence of this country and beat fascism on the horn of Africa. We owe a debt of honour to the people of Somaliland, and should restore to them the freedom that they fought to preserve for us.

Paul Blomfield: I congratulate the right hon. Member on securing this debate, which has demonstrated an exceptional degree of unity across the House in support of his proposal. He makes a good point about the debt of honour that we owe to the people of Somaliland. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) highlighted that we have a strong community of people who owe their origins to Somaliland in our city. In recognition of that, the council passed a resolution in 2014 adding its voice to the demands for independence. Does the right hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson) agree that the parliamentary and local elections held last year were another successful democratic moment in Somaliland, further reflecting the maturity and strength of democracy in the country, which is an essential building block for recognition of statehood, and which the Government should recognise?

Gavin Williamson: I do not often advocate that a Government should follow the leadership of Sheffield City Council, but on this occasion I certainly do. The Government should try to catch up with what that city council has been doing. So many communities—Sheffield, Liverpool, Cardiff, Bristol, Swindon; we could go on and on—have welcomed Somalilanders, and Somalilanders have made these great cities and great communities their home, and will continue to do so.

Ruth Jones: The right hon. Gentleman has demonstrated just how important this topic is to all of us here. Newport is home to the second-largest Somaliland community in Wales, and I want to place on record my thanks for the community’s amazing contributions to the city over the years. Has the right hon. Gentleman given any thought to how the devolved Governments can play a role in supporting the people of Somaliland as they continue to seek formal recognition?

Gavin Williamson: I strongly believe that this is a United Kingdom endeavour, in which we can all move forward in strengthening the bridges that already exist between the United Kingdom and Somaliland. Many steps have already been taken in municipal and devolved government to encourage the links between our great nations of the United Kingdom and Somaliland, but now is the time for the UK Government to take the lead—for the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office not to be shy, and not to think that policy is stuck in the 1960s.

James Daly: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing a debate on such an important subject. There has been unanimity this evening on the many reasons why we should recognise Somaliland, but does he, as a former Education Secretary, view and accept Somaliland as a champion of education in Africa for both boys and girls? We have heard about how the devolved Administrations and this Government can assist, develop and support Somaliland. In that context, the education system is not only something to be treasured, but perhaps a way in which we can provide support.

Gavin Williamson: One of the most precious things that a nation can have is democracy. That means justice, but it also means the education that we give our children. Those who have the privilege of visiting Somaliland will see both boys and girls being educated. There is no discrimination there; Somalilanders want to educate all, because they recognise that that is what will strengthen Somaliland for the future.

Andrew Mitchell: My right hon. Friend has heard representations from people in a number of places where there are large Somaliland communities. Does he agree that the level of remittances to Somaliland from the diaspora is enormous? Some years ago, it was about six times the annual state budget. Perhaps, following this debate, the Minister could consult his officials on trying to make remittancing easier, so that there is more competition and lower charges, and the enormous Somaliland community in the United Kingdom can send money back through the remittancing structure without paying exorbitant fees.

Gavin Williamson: My right hon. Friend is right to highlight the importance of remittances going to Somaliland. This Government do not make that easier for people. Their view that Somaliland is locked in with Somalia makes it much more difficult for businesses to operate there, and to ensure that a flow of money from the diaspora community in this country goes back to Somaliland. The FCDO, working with Her Majesty’s Treasury, could take up this practical issue and consider how it could make improvements. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to respond to that point at the end of the debate.
Somaliland is a country that has incredibly proud links with our country. When we have been in need and have asked for help, it has responded by sending its young men to defend our values and our freedoms. In 1991, it emerged from years of subjugation to the regime in Mogadishu—from having so many citizens, including children, killed in cold blood—and it was able to establish its borders once more. It was able to put in place the structures for a legal system and elections. All across Africa, we are always asking for countries to have proper legal systems, to educate their boys and their girls and to ensure the establishment of democracy. In May last year, we saw the parliamentary elections in Somaliland. They were peaceful; they were calm; they were fair. We saw the roll-out of iris-recognition technology, the first use of that technology anywhere on the continent of Africa, to ensure that they were fair and properly run.
All that goes to show the maturity of this country. In Somaliland, we have seen different parties enter government and leave it without questioning the veracity of their  opponents’ claim. Indeed, as I recall, one presidential election was won by a margin of 80 votes. That vote was accepted, and we saw a peaceful transition. I cannot help thinking that there are some western democracies where, if the margin was quite so close, there might have been a little bit more controversy than we saw within Somaliland.
Somaliland has been an amazing, shining beacon of everything we want to see flourish in Africa. It is the example we want others to follow, but it needs our help and our assistance, because around it are real challenges. To the south, in Somalia, we see the challenges of al-Shabaab. We see the disorder and difficulties in Ethiopia and some of the real security challenges in Djibouti.
Somaliland is a country that wants to be our friend. It is a country that turns to us and asks us to show leadership. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister, instead  of delivering the pre-prepared brief that no doubt  every Foreign Office Minister has read out for the past 60 years, to show some guile, some leadership and some imagination—to show that he is a politician, not just a tool of Foreign Office officials to read their words. I have worked with him in the Whips Office; I saw some moments of merit.
As politicians, and as this House, we must show leadership on this issue. We must show our friends in Somaliland that we are willing to defend them as they have defended us. Even if the Minister cannot give us all the promises we would like to hear—even if he cannot say at the Dispatch Box today that we can recognise Somaliland—he needs to go away, sit down and work out how we take the next steps. We cannot spend another 30 years pretending that the reality on the ground, an independent Somaliland, does not exist because it is not on the Foreign Office map. We must respond to those realities. We must lead on foreign policy. We must show our Somaliland friends that we are there for them and that we will deliver for them—that we will not just talk about our history, but talk about how we can make history together in the future.

Stephen Doughty: It is an unusual pleasure to be able to speak in an end-of-day Adjournment debate, because of the time. I congratulate the right hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson), the former Defence Secretary, and thank him for securing this debate. It has been hugely powerful, and the voices that have been heard on both sides of the House show the strength of feeling among hon. Members and Somaliland communities here in the UK on many of the issues he raised.
I declare my interest as one of the vice-chairs of the all-party parliamentary group on Somaliland, which has existed for a long time in this place. In the spirit of this debate, I am pleased to say that it includes Members from all parties and both Houses. Many of them, like the right hon. Gentleman and I, have travelled to Somaliland and seen for ourselves the hugely impressive progress that has been made, particularly since those very dark days that he started his speech by discussing—the atrocities that were committed and the literal levelling of Hargeisa, the capital city—and the remarkable progress since, largely driven by Somalilanders themselves and members of the diaspora. The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), the former International Development  Secretary, who is still in the Chamber, mentioned the importance of remittances, and the role of Somaliland communities here in the UK in raising funds and supporting projects in Somaliland has been absolutely crucial to that rebuilding since those dark days.
I also want to pay tribute to my predecessor, Alun Michael, who did so much in this place to raise Somaliland’s concerns and to work with people from many different parties, communities and civil society groups, and with different parties in Somaliland, to ensure that our friendship and the progress that we had seen continued.
The all-party group visited Somaliland just a few years ago. It was the first visit we had been able to undertake for some time, and it was remarkable. I had heard so much about Somaliland from Somalilanders in Cardiff and then I was able to see it with my own eyes. We met civil society groups, women, young people, members of the legislature from both houses, and members of the Government. We also saw some of the progress that was being made and heard about the work the UK Government had done to support development projects, trade, economic development and security.

Rushanara Ali: Does my hon. Friend agree that, as well as Government recognition, we should also recognise, as he has, the important contribution that Somalilanders have made to the development agenda? The Government’s decision to cut the aid budget from £121 million in 2020-21 to £71.2 million this year is setting the nation back, so the Government need to reconsider that.

Stephen Doughty: My hon. Friend raises an important point. She knows my views on the aid budget—I have expressed them in this place many times, and I know they are shared by many Conservative Members. There have been some welcome investments in Somaliland through the aid budget and, as the right hon. Member for South Staffordshire mentioned, through the investment made by the former Commonwealth Development Corporation—now British International Investment—in Berbera port and the DP World partnership there, which has been very important and welcome. However, my hon. Friend is absolutely right that those cuts have impacted on our ability to work on a whole series of issues in a whole series of countries and strategic locations, and they were an error, as we have debated many times in this place.
As has been mentioned, the history of the Somaliland community and our friendship links goes back well beyond all of us in this Chamber. In fact, in Cardiff they go back to the middle 1800s. Cardiff was one of the largest coal ports in the world, exporting to the world and setting the price of coal, and friendship links, particularly with the horn of Africa, the Arabian peninsula and elsewhere, were absolutely crucial. That is one reason why there is such a strong Somaliland community in Cardiff, as well as a strong Yemeni community and many other communities from around the world, which made up the incredible part of the community I live in—Butetown or Tiger Bay.
At the heart of that has been the incredible contribution from Somalilanders, which continues to this day. They take great interest in what happens not only in Somaliland but, crucially, at home in Cardiff, and they are key in many of our community organisations and institutions. It has been a pleasure to hear from many of them in  advance of this debate—I do not want to name names, because I will upset people by missing them out, but all those who contact me regularly know who they are, and they continue to stand up for the interests of Somaliland and Somalilanders.
Somalilanders have a proud history in Cardiff, which also stretches to military history, with those involved in the Somaliland Camel Corps and the Somaliland Scouts. Those Somalilanders, along with many people from across the Commonwealth—from across the former empire and dominions—fought alongside us in world war one, world war two and many other conflicts. That is often overlooked, but we in Cardiff recognise those contributions regularly. We also recognise the contribution made by those who served in our merchant navy. Every year when we celebrate merchant navy memorials in Cardiff bay and elsewhere and look at the lists of names, we see Somali names and names of people from countries all around the Commonwealth that we have friendships with.

Bob Stewart: I well remember Somali soldiers coming across from the horn of Africa to the Aden protectorate and my father having the honour to command really good soldiers and decent men.

Stephen Doughty: Absolutely. The hon. and gallant Gentleman makes an important point. We as a country need to recognise far more that our friends from across the Commonwealth have made contributions, and in some cases the ultimate sacrifice, in conflicts throughout many generations.
I want make a few practical points. First, we should recognise the strong links between so many cities across the UK and Somaliland. There are many British-Somaliland dual nationals, yet they experience many difficulties with travel, visas, restrictions—all sorts of things go on. We must ensure that support is available to them. That is difficult given the current situation in Somaliland, and we heard from many members of the British-Somaliland community on our visit about issues that arose if they lost a passport or wanted documentation authorised. They asked why the British Council did not have a bigger presence there.
I met young people who want to come and study here in the UK and build links between UK universities and educational institutions in Somaliland. They are often denied those opportunities. We could be doing so much more at a practical level to support those with dual nationality and dual heritage.

Kim Johnson: I support my hon. Friend’s point about the need for the British Council to be located in Hargeisa. Does he agree that the Government may need to think about the funding to enable that to happen and to develop relationships with Somaliland?

Stephen Doughty: Absolutely. The British Council plays a key role around the world. The cuts to it have been deeply concerning and have been raised by hon. Members from all parties in the House. The issue was specifically raised when we were there, and I hope our links in that area can develop.
Huge progress has been made in health and development in particular. I have had the pleasure, as many across the House have, of meeting the remarkable former first lady and Foreign Minister Edna Adan on many occasions.  If hon. Members have not listened to her “Desert Island Discs” and other fantastic interviews with her, I would strongly encourage them to do so. She is one of the most remarkable women I have had the pleasure of meeting, and I had the pleasure of visiting the hospital that Edna helped to resource and establish. She provided significant funding out of her own pocket. It is a maternity hospital; a training hospital to improve maternal health outcomes in Somaliland. Remarkable work is being done there, but so much more could be done if we were to develop our friendships further and ensure that the support was there for that.
We have seen remarkable progress in education. I visited Hargeisa University, a remarkable place doing brilliant work, where the majority of students are women and girls. That is exactly the sort of example that we want to set around the world, ensuring that young women and girls are able to thrive and seize all the opportunities that should be available for them, whether in Somaliland or elsewhere on the global stage.

Lilian Greenwood: My hon. Friend is making a powerful contribution to an extremely good debate. Does he agree that Somaliland stands as a beacon of hope and shows what can be achieved where there is democracy, and that that is part of the reason why the UK Government should officially recognise it for the work that it does and the leadership it can offer within Africa?

Stephen Doughty: The leadership and the example that Somaliland has shown is there for all to see, and it is certainly there for those who have had the pleasure of visiting, as I have. Its progress in so many areas has been long overlooked. Progress has been made in trade and we met many businesses that wanted to expand their trading relationships with the UK and with their neighbours. Indeed, that is one of the crucial driving factors behind the investment in Berbera port by DP World, the UK and others. It is critical, not least when other trading routes may be more difficult and may be in the interests of strategic—I do not want to say “opponents”—challenger countries in the world that may have a different agenda. It is crucial that we are getting in there and supporting the development of trade links.
The politics has already been mentioned. Significant progress has been made in elections and democracy. Multiple elections have been held at both presidential and parliamentary level. I have met representatives of all the parties and civil society. Not everything is perfect, but significant progress has been made over recent years, and the UK has played a key role in supporting the practicality of elections and ensuring that they are free and fair. Election observation missions have often had strong UK support and included UK contingents.
Hon. Members have mentioned the security situation. I would love to see the day when a more reasonable approach is taken to travel advice about Somaliland. There have been recent improvements, but unfortunately some of the advice that is given at the moment puts people off travelling and building those links. I urge the FCDO to look again at the travel advice to Somaliland and see whether it can be more open, because in reality it is a very safe place to engage in business, education and travel. We do not want to see potential friendships and links pushed away.
Several hon. Members, particularly the right hon. Member for South Staffordshire, rightly raised the strategic location of Somaliland. There is very serious concern about the activities of opponents—Russia, China or others—operating in the region. We have a strong friendship; Somaliland wants a strong friendship with the UK. It is a key strategic location, and we would be very foolish not to recognise that in our global Britain strategy and our wider strategic posture around the world, not least in relation to a place that wants a close friendship with us.

Richard Holden: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson) on securing the debate. The hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) raised the specific issue of strategic placement. Does he agree that if we use our Commonwealth connections across Africa, we can highlight not just Somaliland’s strategic importance for military and diplomatic links, but its strategic place within the future development of the Commonwealth?

Stephen Doughty: That point has been raised with me on a number of occasions by the Somaliland Government and members of the Somaliland community. Although at the moment Somaliland cannot attend the Commonwealth summit as a full member, our all-party group has raised the question whether observer status or attendance in another capacity might be possible even now.
Building links through the Commonwealth and other international organisations will certainly be critical. As I mentioned, it was a delight to have the support of the Inter-Parliamentary Union for our APPG links, because there is a huge opportunity for mutual training, exchange and links between our Parliaments. There is a real desire for that on both sides; again, the Commonwealth could be key.
I end by re-emphasising the huge contribution that Somalilanders have made to Cardiff and to the UK, and the huge benefits of that mutual relationship of friendship and respect. It is a relationship that has not had enough attention; it needs far more, both from our Government and in this place. I am delighted by the voices that we have heard speaking up today in friendship, support and solidarity with Somaliland: they send a very strong message to the Government. I very much look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

Jim Shannon: It is an absolute pleasure to contribute to this debate. I often make contributions to Adjournment debates, but they are usually interventions, so perhaps tonight I will get the chance to say a wee bit more.
I congratulate the right hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson) on securing the debate. He said many things that I totally agree with. He mentioned the words “union of equals”; I hope that that will take place. There has been much talk of Somaliland citizens having the support of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland through and alongside their participation in wartime activities. That is very important—that strong relationship is clearly there. I hope that our Minister will reply very positively.
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief, which the right hon. Gentleman and others referred to, I wish to draw the House’s attention to something that concerns me: the situation of Christians in Somaliland. It is heartbreaking that so few Christians remain in Somaliland because most have been driven out by extreme persecution or even killed. It is estimated that only a few hundred Christians live there today, but it is impossible to know the exact number because of the secrecy that they are forced into as a result of the divisive clan mentalities and vigilantism that pervade the country.
Christians suffer ostracism and discrimination from their wider families and communities wherever they are discovered. The few Christians remaining in Somaliland are forced to worship in secret for fear of attacks from extremists. The extremist group al-Shabaab, which the right hon. Gentleman referred to, propagates anti-Christian ideology and threatens converts to Christianity with execution on discovery.
Many women in Somaliland are under threat. The situation is even worse for those who are discovered to be Christians—fearing rape, forced marriage or being stoned to death. I hope that tonight’s debate will illustrate and raise awareness of those things, and perhaps they can be addressed through the requests that we are making.
Our Government have made it central, in the Ministers who have been appointed, that in foreign policy we have a particular focus on religious persecution, the persecution of ethnic minorities and human rights issues. Those are key to my approach. I make a plea to the Minister for improvements in those things to be central to any steps forward that we all wish to see.
I do not have anyone in my constituency from Somaliland, as far as I am aware, but that does not lessen my support for what the right hon. Member for South Staffordshire said. Those who have Somalilanders in their constituencies, such as the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), who has a strong community, know that political factors are at play in the conflict. The religious motivation for attacks in the region cannot and should not be denied, with Christians suffering the worst of the persecution.
All the contributions tonight have clearly shown that we wish to help Somaliland economically, but central to any agreement must be human rights guarantees and religious freedom. We must help if we can. Others have referred to the democratic process and the education opportunities that we can build on, with jobs, a strong legal structure and improvements to health through covid vaccines, which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned.
There has been much talk of the history that unites us, but it is important—I love history: it is probably one of the few subjects that I enjoyed at school and did fairly well at—that we also look to the future. The UK Government have stated that they will not formally recognise Somaliland as a sovereign state until it initiates a process to do so with the Federal Government of Somalia, but human rights issues and religious liberty need to improve. I agree that it is important that the UK retains diplomatic relations and a supportive presence in Hargeisa through this process, to ensure that there is no breakdown in relations between Somaliland and other African countries.
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for bringing the matter to the House. This debate has benefited from the presence of a large number of Members who all want the best for Somaliland. I believe the Minister wants the best for Somaliland and its people too, and that is what we are trying to achieve. Somaliland needs our help, and perhaps the debate tonight will be our opportunity. Let us not be found wanting. The time has arrived and the contributions from everyone tonight are an indication of our request to the Minister and the Government to do well for Somaliland.

Kerry McCarthy: I did not intend to speak tonight, but I am glad to have the opportunity to say a few words. I congratulate the right hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson) on securing the debate today.
When I was first elected in 2005, I was only selected as the candidate for my constituency about 10 weeks before polling day. During that short election campaign, I was approached by people from the Bristol Somaliland community. It was the first that I had even heard of the place, but by the time I came here I was a firm supporter of the need for recognition.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) paid tribute to his predecessor, Alun Michael, and news of my support had somehow reached Alun on the grapevine. I remember him accosting me in the Division Lobby on my first vote and saying that we needed to campaign on Somaliland. He was on the Front Bench at the time, but a year later in 2006 we set up the all-party group, and I am pleased to have been an officer pretty much ever since. I congratulate my hon. Friend on being the mainstay of that group, organising all our meetings and being an expert source of information on what is going on in Somaliland.
As has already been said, Somaliland is a beacon of democracy not just in the horn of Africa but in Africa. It has held peaceful elections, and the right hon. Member for South Staffordshire referred to the election in 2003 when the presidency changed hands by 80 votes. If Donald Trump had lost by that amount, we would never have heard the end of it.
What was slightly disappointing about the most recent election is that, although there was yet another peaceful handover, quite a lot of progress still needs to be made on female representation. There was one woman MP, but now there are zero, out of 82 elected MPs. There was also low turnout in some areas. Through the Westminster Foundation for Democracy or other mechanisms, I hope we can do a bit more work on that front.
I join my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth in paying tribute to Edna. I, too, have visited the hospital in Hargeisa and she is a formidable woman. Indeed, I have met many formidable women campaigning on issues such as FGM, maternal health services and recognition for Somaliland.
I echo what my hon. Friend said about the economic opportunities that would be available if we recognised Somaliland. I have heard there is amazing scuba diving on the north coast by Berbera, which could be opened up as a peaceful tourist destination if it were not associated with Somalia. Many other economic avenues could be explored, and I share the concerns of people who are worried about Chinese influence if we do not step in.
The main thing I want to say is that Somaliland is clearly an independent country, and it has functioned as such since 1991. It established itself as a post-colonial independent country, albeit for a very short time, before it went into partnership with Somalia. The message that the UK will recognise Somaliland but we want to be the second to do so is frustrating. There is sometimes a bit of concern about being seen as too colonialist and it being rather patronising that we are the ones who grant nationhood on the country.
Mark Malloch-Brown was a very good Minister for Africa in Gordon Brown’s Government, and he really engaged with the APPG on Somaliland. I thought we were getting somewhere. He had had conversations with various African countries and the African Union, and it looked like we were almost there on recognition. The last we heard was the current Minister for Africa, the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford), say in November 2021:
“Our policy remains that it is for Somaliland and the Federal Government of Somalia to decide their future”.
It has nothing to do with the Federal Government of Somalia.

Gavin Williamson: The hon. Lady raises an important point. That is effectively giving the final say, the decision-making power, to a country that does not have free and fair elections, that does not have judicial and legal systems and that does not educate boys and girls. We are effectively rewarding poor behaviour and being harsher on those who demonstrate the type of behaviour and the type of system we want to encourage.

Kerry McCarthy: That is exactly my point. The future of Somaliland has nothing to do with the Federal Government of Somalia, and it should not be in their hands. We need to be brave and step up to the plate. The Minister needs to find a country that will go first so that we can go second—I think some of the Scandinavian countries, Canada and some African countries have talked about it. If we do not do that, we will find ourselves here in another 10 years’ time as Somaliland celebrates its 40th anniversary of de facto independence without being recognised.
I finish with a plea to the Minister. Will he step up? If we will not be the first, could he find someone who will be?

Chris Heaton-Harris: I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson) for securing the debate, and I have learned of his long-standing and enthusiastic engagement with Somaliland. I am afraid that, probably like so often in the past, I might well disappoint him a tiny bit today, but I will try to answer many of the points he made.
I am also grateful for a debate that has been a pleasure to listen to, and I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions—the hon. Members for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) and for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty); my right hon. Friends the Members for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) and for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell); my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for  South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland); the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat); the hon. Members for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson) and for Brent North (Barry Gardiner); my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Stuart Anderson); the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar); my right hon. Friends the Members for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns) and for Beckenham (Bob Stewart); the hon. Members for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) and for Newport West (Ruth Jones); my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (James Daly); the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood); my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden); and the other Members who made speeches. They all demonstrated the depth of passion that there is for Somaliland, and many described how their constituents from Somaliland are so active in such a positive way in their constituencies, which I think is a testament and a tribute to them for making such a positive contribution.
My right hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire detailed Somaliland’s proud links and friendship with the UK, and I would like to think that what he detailed is absolutely correct. The Minister for Africa—the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford)—would have been delighted to take part in the debate, but she is currently visiting east Africa, so it is my pleasure, as Minister for Europe and in post for less than a month, to respond on behalf of the Government.
Somaliland has a remarkable and unique story, and its people are rightly proud of their homeland and its achievements. Our relationship with Somaliland dates back to at least the 19th century, when a number of seafarers and merchants settled in Britain, and later the UK established a protectorate. The hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth mentioned not just the contributions of people from Somaliland to the city that he represents and to the United Kingdom, but the deep links and communities they have formed across Cardiff and beyond. Quite rightly, indeed, he mentioned his predecessor and his role in establishing the all-party group in this place, as well as the interest that has grown from it.
Today, we enjoy a really close partnership with Somaliland. We are the only western country with a permanent office in Hargeisa, through which we engage with the Somaliland Government on a range of issues—from trade and investment to climate change and development. The Somaliland authorities also have an office in London, and we have regular contact with their UK representative and his team.
The Government understand the strength of feeling towards Somaliland and the interest, which has obviously been demonstrated in this Chamber today, about the issue of recognition. In recent years, Somaliland has made great strides towards an inclusive democratic process, and that forms the bedrock of its stability. That was detailed in some ways by the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) and a number of other hon. Members. Last May, we saw successful local and parliamentary elections, and I am glad to say that the UK was the largest donor to that process, including in funding a mission to observe the elections.

Gavin Williamson: Will my hon. Friend tell the House what he thinks are the defining characteristics of what he would describe as a nation state?

Chris Heaton-Harris: I would be delighted to tell the House, but not at this point in time, because I am going to continue my contribution—

Gavin Williamson: Is he coming to that point?

Chris Heaton-Harris: If my right hon. Friend wants me to come to that point, I shall happily do so, but possibly later in my speech.
It is now important to ensure that the presidential elections and reforms to the Upper House of Parliament go ahead as planned. In a region where democratic transitions are not always the case, Somaliland, as detailed by many right hon. and hon. Members, has demonstrated that one person, one vote elections are possible and that inclusive democratic processes can be achieved. I heard the salient and wise speech on religious freedom from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), and I thank him for that contribution.
Somaliland is also making great progress in trade and investment. The development of Berbera is the most notable example. By 2035, trade through there could support more than 50,000 jobs in Somaliland. We have also forged a partnership with Dubai Ports World to invest in logistics facilities along the Berbera corridor, which runs from the coast of Ethiopia. These investments have the potential to drive economic growth and boost stability across the Horn of Africa. Again, those are hugely positive developments, and again, we are proud to play our part. British International Investment, the UK’s development finance body, is investing in the port with Dubai Ports World as part of a $1.72 billion investment into freeports in Africa. We are using official development assistance to construct a new road bypassing Hargeisa that means that journeys past the city will take, we hope, just 30 minutes instead of up to 12 hours because of congestion. Those investments will not only boost prosperity but bring greater regional integration, which will support peace and stability.

Gavin Williamson: My hon. Friend raises an interesting point about the fact that the UK Government have felt able to invest in the port of Berbera and in the infrastructure of Somaliland. Does he think that such a level of investment would have been able to be done in Somalia? I think the answer would be no because of the security implications. Will he lay out what, in his view, are the defining characteristics of a nation state, and then comment on whether he thinks Somaliland corresponds to any of those defining characteristics?

Chris Heaton-Harris: I was about to come to the point about security, because we have also collaborated on security. The UK has supported training on human rights for Somaliland’s police and security services, and has contributed to 20 years of work on mine clearance. Happily, we expect Somaliland to be declared mine-free in the near future.

Gavin Williamson: In the spirit of debate, which is of course what this Chamber is for, is my hon. Friend able to respond to either of my questions as to whether he  thinks it likely that the British Government would have been able to make the same investment in Somalia that they have done in Somaliland, and whether he could set out what he believes are the defining characteristics of a nation state, both of which I think he should be able to respond to as a Minister?

Chris Heaton-Harris: As my right hon. Friend asked me a question that he then answered in the same question, I will continue with my speech.
Somaliland has also made strong progress in development, which we have been proud to support. Education, particularly for girls, is a priority, as it is across all our work. Our Somali girls education programme has reached over 13,000 girls in Somaliland to support their learning and transition from primary to secondary school, a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North noted well. Through the Global Partnership for Education, the United Kingdom has supported the development of Somaliland’s College of Education and trained nearly 2,200 teachers.
Sadly, climate change is having an increasing impact on Somaliland and the wider region. We are very concerned about the current drought, which has resulted in acute water shortages and reduced food security, particularly for 80,000 people living in rural areas. Early action is essential and the UK is developing a package of measures to address the drought. We are also working with international partners to ensure that additional funding is made available as soon as possible.
The strength of the partnership between the United Kingdom and Somaliland is clear, but I know that sovereignty remains at the top of the agenda for many people from Somaliland, so I want to address that question. I acknowledged earlier the strength of feeling on the issue, which is of real importance to people in the region and in diaspora communities around the world. There is a range of views on the subject and strong convictions exist on all sides of the debate. In part, that reflects the complex and at times painful history that followed the brief independence, in June 1960, of what had been British Somaliland.
The United Kingdom Government’s position on this matter has been consistent, and it will not come as a surprise to my right hon. Friend, as it is exactly the same as it was when he was in government. We value the close and productive relationship with Somaliland, but in line with the rest of the international community, we do not recognise it as an independent state. We firmly believe it is for Somaliland and the Federal Government of Somalia to decide their future. It is for neighbours in the region to take the lead in recognising any new arrangements.

Rushanara Ali: I want to draw a parallel to the country I was born in—Bangladesh. The UK Government took a leadership role and supported the right to self-determination of the country in which I was born during the war of independence between Pakistan and Bangladesh. It did not say that Pakistan should determine the future of the independence of what became Bangladesh. Does he not see how ridiculous the position he is taking is?

Chris Heaton-Harris: No, I do not. I believe it is completely correct for neighbours in the region to take a lead in recognising any new arrangements.

Gavin Williamson: If we take the position that the Minister is espousing at the Dispatch Box, which is that he wants there to be discussions between Somaliland and the Federal Republic of Somalia, that is something that people have engaged with extensively for many years. Does he also recognise that there cannot be a situation where the Federal Republic of Somalia can have a veto over independence? Britain has a role in convening and leading the discussions, especially as the UN penholder on Somaliland and Somalia.

Chris Heaton-Harris: My right hon. Friend makes a proper point, as he always does, but the UK Government’s position on the matter has been consistent. It was consistent at the time that he was in government and it remains the same. We have long encouraged dialogue between the authorities in Mogadishu and Hargeisa on the future relationship, and we continue to do so.

Bob Stewart: A nation state, according to me, is a grouping of people who all speak roughly the same language and have similar heritage. They become a nation state when people recognise them. I do not think it is fair that Somaliland becomes a nation state only if the people around it, who are traditionally against it, agree to that. We could take the lead, and I plead with my hon. Friend—a very good friend—to put it back to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office that we should be changing our attitude on that.

Chris Heaton-Harris: I thank my right hon. Friend for his point and the constructive manner in which he put it. My colleagues in the FCDO will doubtless be watching the debate, and will have seen the positive and supportive nature of it.

Gavin Williamson: Will the Minister give way at all?

Chris Heaton-Harris: At all? I believe I have been giving way fairly regularly, but of course.

Gavin Williamson: Will my hon. Friend inform the House when the policy on Somaliland was last reviewed and how extensive that review was?

Chris Heaton-Harris: As Minister for Europe, I am afraid I cannot give my right hon. Friend that information, but I will happily write to him.

Stephen Doughty: I thank the Minister for giving way; he is being very generous. On a practical point and in the light of the interventions that have been made,  the Minister is well aware that there is currently huge political instability in the Federal Republic of Somalia, including huge chaos and infighting among the Government, along with many other problems. With whom should the Somaliland Government be having discussions? That is a practical question that they have raised with me, given the chaos we have seen in Mogadishu in recent months.

Chris Heaton-Harris: The answer is with their neighbours, the African Union and those who are properly interested. Indeed, there is a representative body in this country with which we engage. Those conversations should obviously continue through the appropriate routes. As my right hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire said, I am a politician and I understand that that position obviously cannot please all parties. I recognise that the supporters of Somaliland independence will quite rightly continue to make their case.
Let me conclude by assuring the House that although we believe that it is for Somaliland and the Federal Government—
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Amanda Solloway.)

Chris Heaton-Harris: My right hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire and I will remember our happy days in the Whips Office—interesting House procedures do step in every now and then.
Let me draw my remarks to a conclusion by assuring the House that although we believe it is for Somaliland and the Federal Government of Somalia to decide their future, we remain committed to a close and productive partnership. We will continue to support the Hargeisa authorities and the people of Somaliland on their democratic journey. We will do that by investing in Somaliland, in pursuit of trade and prosperity, by building security for all Somalilanders and by supporting development and resilience to the impact of climate change.
I again thank all Members for their contributions to this excellent debate, which I have truly enjoyed. I look forward to having similar debates in the near future.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.